Sony: We'd rather spend money on R&D than to stop people using products. [Archive]

masteratt

01-18-2009, 06:56 PM

BE WARNED: 2 MONTHS OLD!

In the fire of exclusive DLC going to 360, Sony responds to fan worries saying the money is being spent more wisely:

Sony UK boss on DLC: 'Nothing is ever exclusive'

Sony Computer Entertainment UK managing director Ray Maguire has told VideoGamer.com that "nothing is ever exclusive" in response to questions surrounding exclusive DLC on Microsoft's Xbox 360.

Microsoft has tied up Xbox 360 exclusive downloadable content for some of this year's biggest games, including GTA 4, Fallout 3 and Tomb Raider: Underworld, leading to complaints from some PS3 owners that Sony isn't doing enough for them.

However, speaking to VideoGamer.com at the Games 3.0 conference in London earlier this week, Maguire rejected those complaints, saying he would "much rather that we (Sony) were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."

Maguire's "nothing is ever exclusive" comment is certain to add fuel to speculation that the high profile GTA 4 DLC that is due for release exclusively on the Xbox 360 will eventually make its way to the PS3.

Back in May, SCEE boss David Reeves told VideoGamer.com in that PS3-owners "probably will see" GTA 4 DLC, and described the deal as "the last shot they (Microsoft) have".

When asked if he had any message for PS3-owners who feel frustrated at the fact that they won't be have access to downloadable content for GTA 4, Fallout 3 and Tomb Raider: Underworld, Maguire replied: "One thing to remember, nothing is ever exclusive. Things get wrapped up for a period of time for a large amount of money and if it's a strategic decision by competition to do that then we have to live with that."

He added: "Obviously, what we have to do is make sure that our business plan is adhered to and we have the amount of money to invest in games rather than investing in stopping other people making games and progressing. So I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."

When we pressed Maguire on the subject, asking him directly if exclusive Xbox 360 DLC might eventually come to the PS3, he dodged the issue, saying: "You have to remember that most third-party publishers of course have a business proposition that covers all platforms. With our own of course it's different because our investment would purely be on our own platforms, and that's the same as any first party. That's a small part of the overall offering nowadays and the days of big exclusives, I think they were over a couple of years ago but they're certainly over now."

Be sure to check the site later this week for VideoGamer.com's interview with Ray Maguire in full.

What do you think? Will Xbox 360 exclusive DLC eventually come to the PS3? Would you prefer Sony to invest in R&D than in exclusive DLC? Let us know in the comments section below.
http://www.videogamer.com/news/29-10-2008-9789.html

Great write-up and to answer the ending question + my comments:

Yes I do, at least I'm 99% sure GTA4 DLC will make it to PS3 sometime a lot later though.

I think Sony is too tight money wise to splash cash around and so while I'm not happy they can't do both R&D and exclusive 'buy-outs', I'm happy to see they make the right choice when situation is tight.

Red_Eyes

01-18-2009, 06:59 PM

I am pretty this is old.

masteratt

01-18-2009, 07:03 PM

oops, 2 months old in fact :doh:

Thread already made I assume, my bad...

Raitei

01-18-2009, 07:03 PM

very

OmniCloud

01-18-2009, 07:43 PM

I don't remember ever reading it. But yeah I would agree that money is better spent doing other things, PS3 simply needs to show more of those other things in terms of games.

Going good so far though, just want more.

EvilTaru

01-18-2009, 07:53 PM

They're much better off putting money into the quality first-party internal teams they have because they actually make great games, the IP belongs to Sony, instead of pouring money into securing "exclusive" DLCs or time-exclusives that, while do help the console a bit, end up strengthening another publisher's IPs (making securing future exclusives even more difficult and expensive because it gives other publishers more leverage) while marginalizing your own because your own IPs need that marketing and resources to be great. Marketing spent on games like DMC/VF5/Tekken 6 (none of which yielded ANYTHING for the console) could have EASILY helped to marketing games like UNCHARTED!!!111!!!http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/angry.gif and Little Big Planet. Unfortunately they don't have the money to spend on everything, so they need to focus on what they develop themselves. The days of trying to get a GTA exclusive is over, the publisher can't afford to do that, and Sony is better off making their own game and having their own permanent exclusive to drive console sales.

Theo

01-18-2009, 09:10 PM

LiquidEagle

01-18-2009, 09:11 PM

The best exclusives are exclusives that weren't paid for, anyways.

OmniCloud

01-18-2009, 09:42 PM

Yeah... I prefer them spending their cash like this as well, if a choise has to be done. The problem is not with exclusive or timed exclusive DLC though, but with whole damn games being "lost" as multiplatform releases or even as exclusives of some form IMO. Not saying sony should just blindly buy every possible exclusivity, but some tittles would have been worth it (if possible that is) I believe.yeah, GTA4 would have made a lot of people fork over the cash for a PS3, thus more would be in people's homes right now, and third party support/media support would be better.

It probably wouldn't have been a good business deal for Sony though, or there just stingy with the green:shrug: lol

VG Aficionado

01-18-2009, 10:54 PM

*scratches his head while he looks at the lock stick*

Kiwi

01-18-2009, 11:45 PM

I don't remember seeing it on here before, so we may as well leave it.

Dakota Grabowski

01-19-2009, 12:36 AM

my opinion on the matter is this...

As a fan, I want games. Sony should be trying to securing them by any means necessary. Fans normally don't like delays or having to wait on titles for too long, so I'm in the same boat. I'd much rather have more software over having them invest into more research and development.

As a critic, it makes sense to try and gear up for the future. Sure a lot of R&D will never see the light of day, but as long as they continue to figure out what's entertaining, then that's fine by me.

I'm not so sure 3D gaming is the way to go, but I've yet to experience it so I can't knock it until I try it.

OmniCloud

01-19-2009, 01:06 AM

Oriscot

01-19-2009, 01:09 AM

I remember hearing a couple of weeks ago in a post that Sony was working on a couple of RPGs. If that's what they are spending the money on, and they are actually investing in it. Then I think that is fine. It only makes sense to me that Sony should have 3 first party developers creating 1) Killer RPG 2) A killer FPS like they are doing with killzone 3) a killer racer like they did with motor storm and a killer action game like they did with God of War, which will hopefully not come out after too much longer.

Dakota Grabowski

01-19-2009, 01:13 AM

Is this 3D gaming thing really a big deal? I mean, we would've heard some PR by now if this was really gonna be a big push for Ps3? I think it will be a group of titles for casuals like Singstar/Buzz/Home.

Sony spoke on it at CES and are trying to convince others (developers/publisher) that it should be considered in the future. Only problem I see with this is that Sony shouldn't be revealing it's cards to Microsoft and Nintendo so early if they do proceed with implementing 3D gaming into their next console.

Who knows how serious they are, but they did make it a focal point at CES 09.

3D gaming has often failed just as it has for films. Sure, there's a huge surge in 3D films right now (James Cameron's Avatar being one of the most anticipated films of this year) but the value of this tactic fades rather quickly as evident with old horror pictures back in the Golden Age of cinema and 3D's resurgence in the '80's with films such as Jaws 3D.

I'll admit that it was fun seeing Bolt in 3D and I look forward to seeing what tech-savvy visual men of Hollywood can do with it, but I just don't know if 3D has a real chance at entering into the homes nationwide for video games until I see it in person and see how it benefits video game design and gameplay.

XboxEvolved

01-19-2009, 01:32 AM

I think Sony def has the right idea with 3D gaming, this is the true jump in television, not this SDTV to HDTV crap.

If Sony can utilize this technology on PS4, than PS4 will be bigger than the Wii was.

Kiwi

01-19-2009, 01:47 AM

Isn't this just the same as VR?

01-19-2009, 01:52 AM

Kiwi

01-19-2009, 01:56 AM

Microsoft

OmniCloud

01-19-2009, 02:06 AM

Word...

Ninty is just laughing @ everyone though;) Going by what Dakota and Xbox said, I'll keep an eye on everything Sony does in the 3D space.

One thing that looked appealing though was Eye Pet. Very childish, but appealing. I still don't understand why PSeye isn't shipped with a bunch of mini-online games like chess/pacman etc where PS users could interact with one another with a video chat.

JasonXe

01-19-2009, 02:34 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00675/3D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

01-19-2009, 02:40 AM

looks should never stop progress. and guess what, you're the only one looking back at ordinary people and all of those are getting their socked knocked off by what they are seeing. they don't even notice or care about the cameraman.

having said that, I don't have much faith in 3D since it has been the 'next big thing' since the 90's.

LaLiLuLeLo

01-19-2009, 03:14 AM

Yeah I'm not too concerned with adding more apparatus to console gaming.
Since the 80s game companies and toy companies have been determined to make the kids (who are now grown I guess) look like cyborgs.

TrueVCU

01-19-2009, 03:36 AM

01-19-2009, 03:38 AM

I particularly like that picture because the guy in the middle laughing looks like my best character and only reason watching the show 3rd Rock from the Sun. lol

TrueVCU

01-19-2009, 04:25 AM

I particularly like that picture because the guy in the middle laughing looks like my best character and only reason watching the show 3rd Rock from the Sun. lol

you speak of John Lithgow, I presume
http://www.edutopia.org/images/graphics/john_lithgow.jpg

OmniCloud

01-19-2009, 04:47 AM

I can't comprehend how it will add very much to gaming besides more visual eye candy.

01-19-2009, 05:51 AM

up, that's him. I freakin' love that guy! he's hilarious. :)

TimmyJ

01-19-2009, 06:09 AM

01-19-2009, 06:51 AM

talking about 3D, I remember when I first experienced it in a science show in the late 90's. everyone was acting all cool like (or they were too dumb to notice what was going on) but I didn't care; I was screaming like a little girl seeing a Barbie house under the christmas tree.

ahh, good time, good times.

arthur

01-19-2009, 07:50 AM

people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones......reminds me of a game called mirrors edge

TimmyJ

01-19-2009, 08:48 AM

people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones

Never eat yellow snow

Freeman_JI

01-19-2009, 10:20 AM

"When asked if he had any message for PS3-owners who feel frustrated at the fact that they won't be have access to downloadable content for GTA 4, Fallout 3 and Tomb Raider: Underworld, Maguire replied: "One thing to remember, nothing is ever exclusive. Things get wrapped up for a period of time for a large amount of money and if it's a strategic decision by competition to do that then we have to live with that."

Sure add Bioshock PS3 to that and to a lesser extent Oblivion (with DLC inc) I remember 360 fans saying no way but it happened.

It goes both ways though Tekken, FF dare I say it MGS Substance.

Anything third party is fair game I would be surprised if said DLC does not appear on PS3.

Gegenki

01-19-2009, 10:59 AM

I can't comprehend how it will add very much to gaming besides more visual eye candy.

Its very different. If you have ever been to disney land they have Honey I shrunk the audience and when I went to disney world they had terminator.
There was a 3D race at lego land but it was no where near as good as the others.
I believe they also had a bugs life at disney world but I don't remember that well.

The best one was terminator by far. There were quite a few things taht obviously cant be done in the home but the 3D was stunning because its not like things are on the screen, but with a bit of depth like the red blue glasses. With these they actually come out at you to the effect that you think they are going to touch you.
Theres a part in honey i shrunk the audience where they break through the glass on the screen and all the glass shards come flying at you. It seriously looks like its going to hit you such that everyone screams and covers their face.
Theres a also a mini hovercraft object in it which keeps flying back and forth in front of your face. It being that close actually makes you afraid that if you touch the blades you will get cut.
3D would add a whole new level of immersion to video games.

AC!D

01-19-2009, 11:54 AM

OmniCloud

01-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Its very different. If you have ever been to disney land they have Honey I shrunk the audience and when I went to disney world they had terminator.
There was a 3D race at lego land but it was no where near as good as the others.
I believe they also had a bugs life at disney world but I don't remember that well.

The best one was terminator by far. There were quite a few things taht obviously cant be done in the home but the 3D was stunning because its not like things are on the screen, but with a bit of depth like the red blue glasses. With these they actually come out at you to the effect that you think they are going to touch you.
Theres a part in honey i shrunk the audience where they break through the glass on the screen and all the glass shards come flying at you. It seriously looks like its going to hit you such that everyone screams and covers their face.
Theres a also a mini hovercraft object in it which keeps flying back and forth in front of your face. It being that close actually makes you afraid that if you touch the blades you will get cut.
3D would add a whole new level of immersion to video games.Well if this could be done in-home with a pair of peripherals I can share your excitement. One of the best rides I've been on was Spider Man at Universal Stuidios. And yeah, you know it's fake, but I was ducking and covering the whole time.

If that level of immersion could be implemented into a home console for a reasonable price, then yeah I can see it as the next thing. Then again, I dunno if people wanna wear glasses every time they play a video game. It won't completely erase genres like fighting games either.

JasonXe

01-19-2009, 02:06 PM

Ken kicks his way outta the t.v as a supaaa move. The only thing I worry about is the bad advertising for it. I don't see if taking off unless it ships with the next console or else it be a niche thing.

Dakota Grabowski

01-19-2009, 03:13 PM

Its very different. If you have ever been to disney land they have Honey I shrunk the audience and when I went to disney world they had terminator.

Terminator is at Universal Studios rather than Disney World

Kiwi

01-19-2009, 03:16 PM

and HISTA is at EPCOT.

arthur

01-19-2009, 03:26 PM

This is such a simple equation: Sony put money into creating new and innovative IP's instead of paying for DLC= Bigger install base because more exclusives on PS3 ( This is banking on the fact that most of these IP's willdo well and im pretty sure LBP, Uncharted and Warhawk have proved this philosophy and new IP's like Infamous and Heavy Rain will continue to do so and hey who knows hot damn maybe even this EyePet thing will do well )but you forget that most of those games have gotten some great scores, but the sales havent done them any justice.

Bigger install base on PS3 means MS have to pay third parties more or grant them more royalties from Xbox live sales = Eventually the price is too steep for MS and Sony gets all DLC at the same time just like MS in the future. Nobody is gonna buy a PS3 just because it could possibly have exclusive DLC from Tomb Raider and Fallout but because it will have better exclusive games on its platform than the competition.third parties are never going to abandon the 360, neither are they going to turn away easy money when you factor in the fact that most of their money comes from the 360 as a platform.

someone on ps3 forums said it best, Sony makes exclusives, MS secures them.
it is something that comes from their inherent financial conditions, personally, i could care less over who is throwing money here or there, so long as there is compelling content, it will keep me interested

OmniCloud

01-19-2009, 03:54 PM

but you forget that most of those games have gotten some great scores, but the sales havent done them any justice.

third parties are never going to abandon the 360, neither are they going to turn away easy money when you factor in the fact that most of their money comes from the 360 as a platform.

someone on ps3 forums said it best, Sony makes exclusives, MS secures them.
it is something that comes from their inherent financial conditions, personally, i could care less over who is throwing money here or there, so long as there is compelling content, it will keep me interestedlol...nice post I heard the last part somewhere before too and can't help but laugh.

Sony's new IP are doing ok though, Uncharted/LBP did fairly well I believe. With a price-drop and sequels these new IP's Sony is creating could be future franchises. Think they're trying to do what Ninty did since 3rd party exclusives and one-on-one with a console days are over.

Just gotta see how it shakes out. I gotta admit though, if Sony gets a few franchises added on to Gran Turismo and God of War, and can be in a situation like Ninty where they don't need 3rd party support--I think it will be a good time for gamers. Sony is still King with trying new stuff/ideas and supporting whacky devs, more or less why I continue to support them.

AC!D

01-19-2009, 03:54 PM

I never said Third parties are gonna abandon MS Arthur i said they are gonna support both consoles equally as the PS3 install base increases e.g Eidos sold a hell of a lot more copies with Tomb Raider on PS3 than they thought they would before they entered into the agreement for exclusive DLC with Microsoft.

My point was the higher the PS3 install base and online install base on Home/PSN the more money MS have to spend on Exlusive games and DLC from third parties. If you think MS are recession proof you are sadly mistaken they arent gonna spend what little profit they have been finally making in the last few months( That is if you dont take the 1 Billion right off into on RROD into account like many dont ) on buying up loyalty thats becoming increasingly expensive as they have shareholders to answer to.

Here is another example of MS's influence dwindling on third party exclusives or a rumour if you will for now "Mass Effect Trilogy Coming to PS3" (http://secondstorygamer.com/2009/01/rumor-mass-effect-trilogy-ps3/) but bound to be true if EA's track record is anything to speak of and this ofcourse was preceded by Bioshock going Mutl plat aswell. The price of exclusives are going up and MS strategy has adjusted accordingly for them to concentrate on Exclusive DLC which is cheaper but eneventually will get more expensive as PSN grows which again is my point rather build new games than Buy DLC woudnt you agree?

If you need even more proof than that then just look how well Nintendo have done with their R & D into Wii games. Need i say more?

Lets face it Sony and Nintendo will always innovate more in games and Tech and MS will always innovate more with Live. My point is as a business man at what point does Buying exclusive games and DLC not become economically feasible any more especially in times of recession?

Oh and as for your LBP and Uncharted didnt set the charts on fire comments well new IP's usually dont but i wouldnt call selling 1.7 million copies in two months for LBP bad and the user creation model they invested in a waste. Same goes for Uncharted i think 2 million is an amazing figure for a new IP which had a really small install base to start of with and here comes the really insteresting part Naughty Dog's tech is being used in most PS3 exclusives which is making the development of other games for Sony cheaper and also nobody ever mentions the DLC for LBP. Do you perhaps have figures on how much money LBP has made off things like MGS pack and with the upcoming GOW and FF packs to come? When MS pay for exclusives they dont get anything from it but a single game to set their console apart from others where as spending your money on talent, new studios and tech for games makes you much more money further down the line and eventually you get to a point where you have close to 10 amazing exclusives coming out in one year on a single console and if that doesnt sell the PS3 this year along with a price cut then nothing else will.

For those that want to read the entire Mass Effect rumour article ill post it here...

One of the biggest questions that came out of EA’s acquisition of Bioware in late 2007 was the exclusivity of the Mass Effect trilogy. Would the games remain on the 360 and PC or would Sony get a piece of the pie as well?

A fairly reliable source close to Electronic Arts tells us that the sequel (and subsequent iterations) will be available the PlayStation 3 as well as the Xbox 360 and PC. According to our source, EA decided to make the series multiplatform mostly due to the “the economic outlook”.

Our source claims that because of the current state of the economy, Electronic Arts is looking to squeeze as much money from its portfolio of games as it possibly can. Obviously, making Mass Effect 2 and 3 multiplatform would increase their sales, as the game would be available to more people.

But what about the PS3 owners who missed the first game? Our source says it is “likely” EA will release a PlayStation 3 port of the original Mass Effect, debuting sometime in mid-2009. Similar to Take-Two’s decision to make a Bioshock port on the PS3, this port would introduce PS3 owners to the series and give EA almost risk-free profit from its sales.

The official announcement will “take place at GDC” (which starts March 23), according to our source. Of course, take this with a grain of salt till then.

Segitz

01-19-2009, 04:19 PM

someone on ps3 forums said it best, Sony makes exclusives, MS secures them.

Is that so? Which exclusive(s) did MS secure after the PS3 hit? And I mean, real ones, not PC too, because I do have both, a PS3 and PC. Even so, the ones that they do have can be counted on one, maybe two hands or are timed exclusives for all I care.

There are some games though, were MS made some effort in securing (although mostly available on PC too) like Mass Effect or Left 4 Dead (most likely timed) and the ones vom SE (also timed).

it is something that comes from their inherent financial conditions, personally, i could care less over who is throwing money here or there, so long as there is compelling content, it will keep me interested

True... and I might add that the childish fanboy wars should stop. I mean, I find it funny sometimes, but it is mostly annoying, especially when the "mature" media play into their cards, be it paid or for free.

XboxEvolved

01-19-2009, 04:29 PM

To say that all Microsoft does is throw money at problems is ridiculous, and for Sony to continue to claim they have -never- done that themselves and you guys believe them shows how blindly you guys will follow a product. If there is any doubt in your minds that MGS4 for example was bought up by Sony for an extended period of time then stop right here, and do not continue contributing to this thread.

GTAIV and FFXIII are two big examples of people claiming MS "bought" content" but the simple fact is, is these games were coming to 360 if MS acted on them or not, the only difference with GTAIV is MS went a step further with it, and in a deal that did just just cover GTAIV, but many 2K Games received DLC exclusive content, and I am confident that the GTAIV DLC will be exclusive, however the same content will come to retail on PS3 and later 360 a few months later after Lost and the Damned.

So more often than not these games are coming to 360 either way, but when something is exclusive about it, I'm sure there was some sort of incentive for the developer.

arthur

01-19-2009, 04:30 PM

Sony's new IP are doing ok though, Uncharted/LBP did fairly well I believe. With a price-drop and sequels these new IP's Sony is creating could be future franchises. Think they're trying to do what Ninty did since 3rd party exclusives and one-on-one with a console days are over. uncharted did great, LBP not so, they had to bundle it, thats why it hit the figures it has hit.
Sony isnt trying to do what ninty is doing, they are ding the only thing they can do.....they dont have the funds to throw around, so they are strengthening first party to go on and get as much content as they can internally, its something much different if you look at the 360 where MS has the funds, and the division is making cash.
plus there seems to be a need for them to make profits more than anything else, that would explain no expansion in terms of first party on their part rather the closure of non performing studios.

Just gotta see how it shakes out. I gotta admit though, if Sony gets a few franchises added on to Gran Turismo and God of War, and can be in a situation like Ninty where they don't need 3rd party support--I think it will be a good time for gamers. Sony is still King with trying new stuff/ideas and supporting whacky devs, more or less why I continue to support them.they have to get the console price down, and get their advert campaign right. but if they did, it would be a great lineup

I never said Third parties are gonna abandon MS Arthur i said they are gonna support both consoles equally as the PS3 install base increases e.g Eidos sold a hell of a lot more copies with Tomb Raider on PS3 than they thought they would before they entered into the agreement for exclusive DLC with Microsoft.no one will ever treat any two consoles the same, money talks in the corporate world.

My point was the higher the PS3 install base and online install base on Home/PSN the more money MS have to spend on Exlusive games and DLC from third parties. not really, most companies will jump at the opportunity of making a fast buck, so long as software sales are way higher on the 360, and developers are making more money on DLC on the 360, there will always be a sway in that direction.

another example is Sony and mirrors edge, they did scratch EA's back, and EA did something back, its got little to do with install base in most cases if there are divergent sales between platforms, but rather sales of software, and money.

If you think MS are recession proof you are sadly mistaken they arent gonna spend what little profit they have been finally making in the last few months( That is if you dont take the 1 Billion right off into on RROD into account like many dont ) on buying up loyalty thats becoming increasingly expensive as they have shareholders to answer to.the RRoD is something that has been written off by now, thats why they are announcing a profit instead of a loss for the entertainment division for quite sometime now. plus any agreements they come to this year will be for games that are coming out in 2010 or later, anything like star ocean, tales of vesperia, tekken or FF are deals that were sealed some time back, plus they keep a lot of cards to their chests.... so no one knows what it is they are working on, or what funds they have allocated for what projects.
all we know is that their division is making money in hundreds of millions, and that gives them money to play around with.

Here is another example of MS's influence dwindling on third party exclusives or a rumour if you will for now "Mass Effect Trilogy Coming to PS3" (http://secondstorygamer.com/2009/01/rumor-mass-effect-trilogy-ps3/) but bound to be true if EA's track record is anything to speak of and this ofcourse was preceded by Bioshock going Mutl plat aswell. The price of exclusives are going up and MS strategy has adjusted accordingly for them to concentrate on Exclusive DLC which is cheaper but eneventually will get more expensive as PSN grows which again is my point rather build new games than Buy DLC woudnt you agree?EA is the biggest multiplatform company there is out there, this shouldnt come as a surprise if it does see the light of day. it got nothing to do with MS rather the vision and goals of EA as a company.

If you need even more proof than that then just look how well Nintendo have done with their R & D into Wii games. Need i say more?first party is great, but i look everywhere and i see great games on all three consoles from their first and second party.,

Lets face it Sony and Nintendo will always innovate more in games and Tech and MS will always innovate more with Live this comment is made from a biased point of view, halo 3 lighting, forge, A.I, that was innovation.
forza 2, model deformation, physics, A.I, that was innovation.
fable 2, deciding what an entire gaming world wil be over the course of your life is something very few have done, lionhead are the first to take that idea to the next level, INNOVATION.

depends on what ones views are.

My point is as a business man at what point does Buying exclusive games and DLC not become economically feasible any more especially in times of recession?
it ensures that you get slightly better hardware sales, it ensures that you mostly get better software sales.
the effect is that MS stands to get more live users, better royalties, more money from peripheral sales, more software sales in future, and better relationships with developers....the spiral effect is priceless, its an investment they see as worth taking, and i understand

the means must justify the end

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 04:35 PM

this forum is becoming N4G with decent grammar

i hate it when those that bury their heads don't see why they irritate those that don't

Segitz

01-19-2009, 05:29 PM

this comment is made from a biased point of view, halo 3 lighting, forge, A.I, that was innovation.
forza 2, model deformation, physics, A.I, that was innovation.
fable 2, deciding what an entire gaming world wil be over the course of your life is something very few have done, lionhead are the first to take that idea to the next level, INNOVATION.

depends on what ones views are.

Forge... dunno, wasn't really a FPS gamer in the past, but there have been enough editors on PCs at least. Bringing a half baked thing to a console isn't innovation^^

Lighting... YEAH RIGHT^^

AI I cannot comment on at all.

Yeah, and I'd REALLY say, that none of the things you mentioned could be qualified as innovation, but mere continuations of things that were already there...

Model Deformation in Racing games has been there ever since at LEAST Daytona USA (even in 2D games on the Amiga with "Chicago 90").

Physics in a racing game an innovation? Papyrus (may they rest in peace) beg to differ.

AI in racing games ... not really innovation? Is it?

Fable... dunno, I want to play that game though!

I'd call the Wiis controls innovation. Sixaxis too, as well as Eyetoy and to some degree Guitar Hero (or it's spiritual predecessors Beat Mania et al).

Console gaming in itself just isn't innovative at all (which isn't necessarily a bad thing though), they merely add subtle things, which were there somewhere else (mostly PC). But there'll be some additions in the next two generations, because else, we would enter another gaming depression I guess.

arthur

01-19-2009, 05:46 PM

Forge... dunno, wasn't really a FPS gamer in the past, but there have been enough editors on PCs at least. Bringing a half baked thing to a console isn't innovation^^it is the first shooter to actually get the feature right on a console, plus you go on and add some of the things it did like the video editor it was great.
it simply brought in a wealth of ideas from a range of platforms and got it right, that to me is innovative
Lighting... YEAH RIGHT^^show me a console game with better HDR lighting, i can assure you there isnt any at the moment, not even KZ2.

AI I cannot comment on at all.
thanks for the honesty

Yeah, and I'd REALLY say, that none of the things you mentioned could be qualified as innovation, but mere continuations of things that were already there...depends on how you look at things, in your words, nothing will ever classify as innovation.

Model Deformation in Racing games has been there ever since at LEAST Daytona USA (even in 2D games on the Amiga with "Chicago 90").yup, but have you seen model deformation that actually affects the way you race in a sim? i didnt see that in GT or even Sega GT.

Physics in a racing game an innovation? Papyrus (may they rest in peace) beg to differ.how far you take it is

AI in racing games ... not really innovation? Is it?play GT then play forza, and compare the AI

I'd call the Wiis controls innovation. Sixaxis too, as well as Eyetoy and to some degree Guitar Hero (or it's spiritual predecessors Beat Mania et al).controls aint innovation, period. they only affect how you play the game, but if the game isnt innovative, what more is in it in terms of innovation?

Console gaming in itself just isn't innovative at all (which isn't necessarily a bad thing though), they merely add subtle things, which were there somewhere else (mostly PC). But there'll be some additions in the next two generations, because else, we would enter another gaming depression I guess.its called evolution, and somethings evolve faster than others....thats what a lot of people have gone on to call innovation, nothing that is being done in this generation is new.....not eve motion sensing controllers, they have been used in arcades for ages

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 05:51 PM

show me a console game with better HDR lighting, i can assure you there isnt any at the moment, not even KZ2.

seriously Arthur...

arthur

01-19-2009, 05:57 PM

when you see HDR lighting in KZ2 tell me

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 06:04 PM

when you see HDR lighting in KZ2 tell me

what i'm saying is that regardless of what type of lighting is used, KZ2 is unsurpassed at this present day.

arthur

01-19-2009, 06:07 PM

what i'm saying is that regardless of what type of lighting is used, KZ2 is unsurpassed at this present day.please research what high definition range lighting is.

and look at its differences with what is being used by current developers, maybe then you wont be making the bold proclamations you are making.

it gets sort of boring when someone comes into a debate with his mind already made up

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 06:09 PM

please research what high definition range lighting is.

and look at its differences with what is being used by current developers, maybe then you wont be making the bold proclamations you are making

126 posts. i have actually contributed to this forum for years now, while some, like yourself simply come here to take a swipe at the PS3. if i tried to do what you lot do in the 360 forum, i would be warned. this is why E-mpire is going downhill.

arthur

01-19-2009, 06:18 PM

126 posts. i have actually contributed to this forum for years now, while some, like yourself simply come here to take a swipe at the PS3. if i tried to do what you lot do in the 360 forum, i would be warned. this is why E-mpire is going downhill.
i rarely post i this forum, i mostly read......and when i do post, i try posting when i have done the relevant research.....if i am proved wrong, my history shows that i have eaten a humble pie and apologized.

if you want this place to be somewhere people worship and show their undying love for the ps3, then you have no idea why forums exist, and this is coming from a former playstation fanboy.
plus just for the record, i am yet to get a warning or ban in this place.....although i was made aware that my posts are some of the most reported.
but that no action has been taken shows that i am within the rules, and that i stick and play by them, ill give everyone their due, be it Sony, MS or nintendo. my posting history is also clear on that.

so please stay on topic and discuss the topic at hand......i have been discussed here a number of times, and its disgusting

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 06:27 PM

i rarely post i this forum, i mostly read......and when i do post, i try posting when i have done the relevant research.....if i am proved wrong, my history shows that i have eaten a humble pie and apologized.

if you want this place to be somewhere people worship and show their undying love for the ps3, then you have no idea why forums exist, and this is coming from a former playstation fanboy.
plus just for the record, i am yet to get a warning or ban in this place.....although i was made aware that my posts are some of the most reported.
but that no action has been taken shows that i am within the rules, and that i stick and play by them, ill give everyone their due, be it Sony, MS or nintendo. my posting history is also clear on that.

so please stay on topic and discuss the topic at hand......i have been discussed here a number of times, and its disgusting

that's fine. so can you and all the other posters who 'coincidently' support the 360 stop telling the person that didn't like multiple PS3 Skus, Sony's advertising, Sony's moderating, loading times in HOME and the official Sixaxis keyboard, that he's a fanboy. between those that have short attention spans, those that have little patience and those that are greedy, it's getting really difficult to enjoy this PS3 forum.

AC!D

01-19-2009, 06:35 PM

@XboxEvolved

To say that all Microsoft does is throw money at problems is ridiculous, and for Sony to continue to claim they have -never- done that themselves and you guys believe them shows how blindly you guys will follow a product.

Nobody said Sony doesnt throw money at Third parties i was just indicating that i was agreeing with this particular Sony strategy in the Sony vs MS business models debate. You cant possibly tell me you would choose to pay third parties outright for exclusivity instead of purchasing new studios, talent, developing tech and creating your own IP's. Dony you agree that the higher the playstations install base gets the more expensive a game like Bioshock 2 will become to secure exclusively? Now during the recession when so much talent is available e.g The guys at Free Radical or the creative director from Tomb Raider who lost his job should be pooled by MS and those little studios who deserve a second chance should be picked up by MS but instead they pay for exclusives and down the line its gonna bite them in the ass when both consoles cost the same price.

@Arthur
no one will ever treat any two consoles the same, money talks in the corporate world.

Seriously dont tell me if Sony has 10 million online gamers and MS 17 million year one and the next year Sony has 20 million and MS has 25 million the cost of exclusive games or DLC will be the same it wont and if it does that business model wont work for that company very long. No two companies will be treated the same but if they both got high install bases it will get even harder to get exclusivity and be more expensive if you think otherwise then your very naive.

That list of innovations via MS you just posted all i can do is cry for you if you think that is innovation. Those things have been done long before MS got into gaming. Thats not to say MS arent innovative in the PC market because there they are the kings but lack Sony and Nintendo' talent in the console industry hence my comment that they hire more talent and buy more good studios going under in this time of recession because they will need this further down the line now that they have their big in into the console industry.

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 06:37 PM

@XboxEvolved

Nobody said Sony doesnt throw money at Third parties i was just indicating that i was agreeing with this particular Sony strategy in the Sony vs MS business models debate. You cant possibly tell me you would choose to pay third parties outright for exclusivity instead of purchasing new studios, talent, developing tech and creating your own IP's. Dony you agree that the higher the playstations install base gets the more expensive a game like Bioshock 2 will become to secure exclusively?

you are wasting your time Ac!d. for some reason most people only think in the short term... it suits their argument

this forum is no better than N4G.

we are now at a point that if you say anything positive about the PS3 your a fanboy and it's pissing me off.

arthur

01-19-2009, 06:43 PM

that's fine. so can you and all the other posters who 'coincidently' support the 360 stop telling the person that didn't like multiple PS3 Skus, Sony's advertising, Sony's moderating, loading times in HOME and the official Sixaxis keyboard, that he's a fanboy. between those that have short attention spans, those that have little patience and those that are greedy, it's getting really difficult to enjoy this PS3 forum.cliff, again its your words, not mine.
multiple SKU's - Sony laughed at MS, and went on that route.

Advertising - they sure could do better in that department.

i have no biews on moderating, and yes, while my gripe with home is that it isnt what people make it out to be.

people have different tastes, even those that support one brand, thats something i have learnt

@XboxEvolved

Nobody said Sony doesnt throw money at Third parties i was just indicating that i was agreeing with this particular Sony strategy in the Sony vs MS business models debate. You cant possibly tell me you would choose to pay third parties outright for exclusivity instead of purchasing new studios, talent, developing tech and creating your own IP's. Dony you agree that the higher the playstations install base gets the more expensive a game like Bioshock 2 will become to secure exclusively?
i think there have been third party exclusives out there that have gone to the playstation 3, MGS 4, Haze......and the VF5 limited exclusivity.

sure MS does it more, but it doesnt mean that Sony or ninty do not participate in that exercise

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 06:53 PM

Arthur then stop posting remarks in other threads about me being blind, that's all i'm saying.

AC!D

01-19-2009, 06:55 PM

@ Arthur i never said Sony and Nintendo dont buy some exclusives i think you should read my post properly before you post otherwise our discussion is pointless and you are just waisting both of our time.

Originally Posted by AC!D
@XboxEvolved

Nobody said Sony doesnt throw money at Third parties i was just indicating that i was agreeing with this particular Sony strategy in the Sony vs MS business models debate. You cant possibly tell me you would choose to pay third parties outright for exclusivity instead of purchasing new studios, talent, developing tech and creating your own IP's. Dony you agree that the higher the playstations install base gets the more expensive a game like Bioshock 2 will become to secure exclusively?

arthur

01-19-2009, 06:55 PM

wouldnt it be prudent for you to post on that topic rather than post here?

ACiD - sorry for the mix up. my apologies

cliffbo

01-19-2009, 07:23 PM

He added: "Obviously, what we have to do is make sure that our business plan is adhered to and we have the amount of money to invest in games rather than investing in stopping other people making games and progressing. So I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."

that just about sums up exactly what is going on at the moment but Sony know and sane people will realize that the amount of money paid for exclusive games and exclusive DLC will eventually have to increase because the amount of money made from producing that same content for the PS3 too will make the devs an ever increasing profit. the exclusives will happen naturally as the hardware and userbase demand a certain standard

TimmyJ

01-19-2009, 07:27 PM

it gets sort of boring when someone comes into a debate with his mind already made up

Doesn't it just?

And you have a shocking idea of innovation.

Killzone 2's graphics are astounding and lend themselves to creating an atmosphere but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.

Uncharted has brilliant AI, particularly in the harder difficulties, but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.

Innovation may be, by it's dictionary definition, a different approach to a familiar problem in which case all of your assertions of innovation are correct, as are the above. But when you follow the everyday, pedestrian definition which also seems to the definition used by the general media, the term innovative tends to go hand in hand with the term "revolutionary".

The Wii is innovative because it has introduced a method of control never seen before, same with the Eyetoy.

Halo was innovative because it brought FPS's to consoles in a way that hadn't really been seen before, particularly its online.

Metal Gear Solid was innovative because it brought the kind of cinematic presentation and story to us that had never been seen before.

I have no doubt that the games you flagged as innovative all contain very highly polished approaches to graphics, physics, and AI, but innovation is about more than doing something well, it's about implementing and introducing it in a way that's never been seen before (i.e. the iPhone).

Great HDR lighting will only ever be a natural progression of implementing lighting in games until something such as real-time ray tracing is introduced.

Realistic physics may well be somewhat within our grasp as of right now, but any progress made in them is merely natural progression until we reach a stage where every object in a game world can behave as its real-world counterpart e.g. we stop solely using solid body physics.

Aggressive AI in a shooter or a racing game (seriously arthur?) is only ever going to be a natural progression of implementing AI in games until we reach a point where opponents feel real e.g. they care about their own life.

Segitz

01-19-2009, 07:49 PM

it is the first shooter to actually get the feature right on a console, plus you go on and add some of the things it did like the video editor it was great.
it simply brought in a wealth of ideas from a range of platforms and got it right, that to me is innovative
show me a console game with better HDR lighting, i can assure you there isnt any at the moment, not even KZ2.

Yeah... but at what cost? It doesn't render natively 720P and it has no AA, which is odd for a 360 titles (the game uses 2 framebuffers for the HDR, so AA wasn't viable).

Games that come close are there though. GT5P has wonderful "HDR" (I dunno if it is real HDR though... it looks convincing to say the least). Uncharted looks VERY beautiful too.

And, to say the least, graphics is THE most objectively talked about feature in a game... so, one likes the look of Halo and the other of GT5... You can't argue that...

But I do say that it is by NO means innovation. Making something "bigger" isn't innovation... it's making more of it^^

thanks for the honesty

depends on how you look at things, in your words, nothing will ever classify as innovation.

I had this discussion a while back too with someone else, and yeah, by my definition, nearly nothing is innovative.

yup, but have you seen model deformation that actually affects the way you race in a sim? i didnt see that in GT or even Sega GT.

Depends... Indycar had it to some degree, back in the mid nineties. So did Grand Prix Circuit in the early nineties... It didn't look as good (obviously), but it played very well. If GT and Sega GT didn't have it doesn't mean nobody had it. Flatout also did it, but it is no sim, so it isn't inside your strict definition.

how far you take it is

play GT then play forza, and compare the AI

Play Grand Prix Circuit 4... Grand Prix Legends... it isn't merely GT against FM2... it's all or nothing, because you brought up innovation, which it clearly didn't.

controls aint innovation, period. they only affect how you play the game, but if the game isnt innovative, what more is in it in terms of innovation?

By your definition, some better graphics are innovation (Halos HDR), but controls aren't? Strange double standard. But what I wanted to say with this is, that those new inputs gave developers new possibilities in gaming. I mean, playing GH with your pad SUCKS, whereas playing it with a guitar is cool and fun. Even things like Wii Fit do apply here.

its called evolution, and somethings evolve faster than others....thats what a lot of people have gone on to call innovation, nothing that is being done in this generation is new.....not eve motion sensing controllers, they have been used in arcades for ages

Yeah, true. But we never had real arcades in Germany, so I am a bit "off limits" there. But when including arcades, we basically have seen nothing new^^ They tried EVERYTHING in Japan... even Horse Race Manager simulations for gods sake!

But, as I said before, it isn't bad that we see little innovation. I'd rather see more interesting games. I especially love the quirky and the mature stuff (as I already counted some time ago, 75% of my games are FSK16 and up). But I'd love to see some real cool stuff done with the PSEye... Eye of Judgment was a beginning, but I want more. Eyedentity looked cool as a concept, but it looks like it died some time ago.

Red_Eyes

01-19-2009, 07:53 PM

Doesn't it just?

And you have a shocking idea of innovation.

Innovation may be, by it's dictionary definition, a different approach to a familiar problem in which case all of your assertions of innovation are correct, as are the above. But when you follow the everyday, pedestrian definition which also seems to the definition used by the general media, the term innovative tends to go hand in hand with the term "revolutionary".
Stick to discussing innovation in games and not "the definitation of innovation is..." Like people are so stupid that they don't even know what innovation means.

The Wii is innovative because it has introduced a method of control never seen before, same with the Eyetoy.True.

Metal Gear Solid was innovative because it brought the kind of cinematic presentation and story to us that had never been seen before.True.

Halo was innovative because it brought FPS's to consoles in a way that hadn't really been seen before, particularly its online.False. Halo was not innovative. It was just a very polished FPS on the console.

Killzone 2's graphics are astounding and lend themselves to creating an atmosphere but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.[/quote]Actually, it is innovative. First person view cover system. Online Clan Valor system. Class base mixing system. Total immersion. All very innovative.

Uncharted has brilliant AI, particularly in the harder difficulties, but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.But combining Third Person Shooting and Platforming is very innovative.

Red_Eyes

01-19-2009, 07:56 PM

please research what high definition range lighting is.

and look at its differences with what is being used by current developers, maybe then you wont be making the bold proclamations you are making.

it gets sort of boring when someone comes into a debate with his mind already made up
It doesn't matter that KZ2 doesn't use HDR lighting. It's lighting system already supress that. Technically? No. Graphically by using tricks? Yes! Does it matter that it doesnt us HDR? Nope. Why should it matter when it already look this good?

TimmyJ

01-19-2009, 08:51 PM

Stick to discussing innovation in games and not "the definitation of innovation is..." Like people are so stupid that they don't even know what innovation means.

Sand in vagina much? The point I was making is that going by the dictionary definition just about anything can be classed as innovative, whereas to you, me, and most of the gaming community, innovation is defined in a somewhat narrower manner.

False. Halo was not innovative. It was just a very polished FPS on the console.

I would disagree that the first Halo wasn't innovative. It was highly polished, it controlled as well as the best PC FPS, and it introduced online gaming to consoles in a particularly smooth manner, vehicles and all. We take all of this for granted now, and have done for some time in the PC world, but it was new to consoles.

I don't like Halo, never have, but credit where credit's due.

First person view cover system. Online Clan Valor system. Class base mixing system. Total immersion. All very innovative.

Yes, Killzone 2 does innovate with its FP cover system, but the point I was making related directly to it's graphical capabilities.

But combining Third Person Shooting and Platforming is very innovative.

Not really, given that both Jak 2+3 did this long before, as did the Ratchet & Clank series, right from its inception.

Red_Eyes

01-19-2009, 09:55 PM

Sand in vagina much? The point I was making is that going by the dictionary definition just about anything can be classed as innovative, whereas to you, me, and most of the gaming community, innovation is defined in a somewhat narrower manner.And my point is everybody already know what innovation means. Narrow, wid, dictionary-defination, it doesn't matter. Innovation is innovation. How hard is that to understand? Spin it, stretch it, twist it, it's still innovation. And people still know what innovation means.

I would disagree that the first Halo wasn't innovative. It was highly polished, it controlled as well as the best PC FPS, and it introduced online gaming to consoles in a particularly smooth manner, vehicles and all. We take all of this for granted now, and have done for some time in the PC world, but it was new to consoles.

I don't like Halo, never have, but credit where credit's due.
I disagreed. Halo didn't really do anything new or innovative.

Not really, given that both Jak 2+3 did this long before, as did the Ratchet & Clank series, right from its inception.Those were more platforming than shooting. Uncharted got it with the right balance. Same as Gears's innovative cover system: Kill Switch did it first. But Gears got the credit since Gears make did it "better". So in this case, the credit goes to Uncharted.

[quote]Yes, Killzone 2 does innovate with its FP cover system, but the point I was making related directly to it's graphical capabilities.[/qoute]Deferred rendering and the post processing processes are very innovative.

"But, but, but deferred rendering have been done before..."

But Killzone 2 does it "better". So the credit goes to Killzone 2. Just like how Gears take the credit for the cover system.

KRA

01-19-2009, 10:01 PM

Killzone 2's graphics are astounding and lend themselves to creating an atmosphere but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.

Metal Gear Solid was innovative because it brought the kind of cinematic presentation and story to us that had never been seen before.

hmm if mgs can be innovative because it brought something that had never seen before

why killzone2 can't be ? if it brings atmosphere, chaos of war, and immersion
that was never seen before... how is it different from your MGS argument ?!

JasonXe

01-19-2009, 10:10 PM

What ever happen to that little monkey pet that works with the camera? Is it coming out or already has? I was thinking about sexually abusing it.

Red_Eyes

01-19-2009, 10:26 PM

Back on topic.

It's good that Sony is going with this strategy. Because the cost of developments have raisen to high that most games will have to be multi-platform to be profitable (unless Sony destroyed Microsoft and Nintendo). The cost of getting an exclusive deal is just too high and Sony can not afford it. Even Microsoft can't afford it too. If you really look at it, Microsoft haven't really been paying money for exclusive left and right. Instead, Microsoft have just been paying money to get PS3 exclusive to go multi-platform. So Sony is smart. Sony uses money to create exclusive games, while Microsoft wastes money trying to get games to go multi-platform.

Segitz

01-19-2009, 10:32 PM

It's like comparing cars somewhat...

One car, let's say Ford, makes a good and reasonably fast sedan... A year later, Nissan comes to market with the GT-R... a VERY good and VERY fast sedan... Is that innovation? No, is it better? Yes.

There are technical innovations between the "old" Ford vs. the "new" Nissan, like the "Command Center", and all that electronic stuff... but is that innovation in the grand scale? I'd say no... And I qualify why...

Say, the two cars are very different, but only under the hood, very many very small things are different. The grand scale (the car still has 4 tyres...) is still the same. Same goes for games. Killzone 1 vs. Killzone 2 is not innovation, it is technical evolution... They use what they can to make a game. They add things, they drop things. But in a grand scale, both are bog standard FPS games. One is better, one is worse. One looks better one looks worse... etc etc...

Innovation (again, TO ME) is something more groundbreaking. Like Eyetoy or even Singstar. They add to gaming which not many have done before in a commercially viable manner. And again, I stress this point... It isn't bad, that we don't see revolution on revolution in gaming. It is a steady process... Compared to 16-bit gaming, we certainly have innovation (fighters, going from 2D to 3D for example, was very impressive for its time). Or even older... Atari versus Nintendo. But the differences take even longer today, although there are "innovations" to be seen everywhere. Even stuff like DLC is something new on consoles (to me at least). But calling it innovative isn't what I'd do. Small innovations here and there don't make a product innovative (... took me long enough to say this^^)

TimmyJ

01-20-2009, 01:10 AM

hmm if mgs can be innovative because it brought something that had never seen before

why killzone2 can't be ? if it brings atmosphere, chaos of war, and immersion
that was never seen before... how is it different from your MGS argument ?!

Because Killzone 2 is, to me, the logical evolution of the cinematic presentation that MGS introduced.

Don't get me wrong, I think Killzone 2 is going to be the best FPS out there when it launches because Killzone was my favourite FPS when I finally bought it. I didn't play any online in Killzone but I was invited to the beta where I had more fun than I'd had in Warhawk. Killzone 2 will be great, I'll love it, but that will be because it will have approaches and polish applied in the ways that make it a great product.

The iPod wasn't the first mp3 player on the market, but it had been designed and amalgamated into a terrific end-product. Some would argue that this is innovation, but I wouldn't. To me, Killzone 2 sits in the same boat.

TimmyJ

01-20-2009, 01:38 AM

And my point is everybody already know what innovation means. Narrow, wid, dictionary-defination, it doesn't matter. Innovation is innovation. How hard is that to understand? Spin it, stretch it, twist it, it's still innovation. And people still know what innovation means.

I wasn't trying to spin it, I just meant that that when the term 'innovative' is applied in its widest meaning, it can justify literally anything new as innovative, which nullifies and defeats the point of classifying anything due to the fact it automatically is by way of its creation,

I disagreed. Halo didn't really do anything new or innovative.

Unless I'm mistaken (which I may well be) Halo was one of the first games to implement the kind of gameplay and XboxLive-type online to console gamers. Arthur said that something such as the Wii can't be said to be innovative, it depends on what games do with it. The same can be said about XboxLive, which means that Halo having the implementation and subsequent impact that it did effectively 'innovated' with the use of XboxLive.

Those were more platforming than shooting. Uncharted got it with the right balance.

But Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank innovated it, Uncharted improved and perfected it...

Same as Gears's innovative cover system: Kill Switch did it first. But Gears got the credit since Gears make did it "better".

... and the same can be said about Killswitch -> Gears of War.

So in this case, the credit goes to Uncharted

The credit goes to Uncharted for implementing platform mechanics with cover-based gunplay. But it improved existing mechanics instead of doing something otherwise unheard of before.

Deferred rendering and the post processing processes are very innovative.

"But, but, but deferred rendering have been done before..."

But Killzone 2 does it "better". So the credit goes to Killzone 2.

Yes it has done it better than anything before it, so the credit goes to Killzone for implementing a load of existing practices into a great end-product. That makes it something perfected by past experiences of the genre, not something 'innovative' and unheard of in the genre/industry.

Red_Eyes

01-20-2009, 02:20 AM

Dakota Grabowski

01-20-2009, 02:41 AM

And that's what I meant too. Halo didn't really do anything new. Halo just took existing stuff and did it better on the console. The truely innovative stuff are stuff like the transition from 2D to 3D, Wii's control system, EyeToy, and stuff like that. Games can't really innovate that much.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Halo was the prominent game that brought system linking to the forefront as no other console before that was able to fully take advantage of system linking. If so, then I think this feature should be considered ground-breaking (and on some merits, innovative).

Xer0

01-20-2009, 03:45 AM

Unless I'm mistaken (which I may well be) Halo was one of the first games to implement the kind of gameplay and XboxLive-type online to console gamers. Arthur said that something such as the Wii can't be said to be innovative, it depends on what games do with it. The same can be said about XboxLive, which means that Halo having the implementation and subsequent impact that it did effectively 'innovated' with the use of XboxLive.

Halo didnt have online, it had up to 16 player multiplayer via system link, however. Which, honestly, was pretty fucking aweasome. But since it was on the cusp of online anyway with Xbox Live going live within two years of Halo (I think, its getting kinda fuzzy), it didnt really go anywhere. Lazy MS or Bungie or whoever decided to not add an online component to the downloadable Halo off of Live Marketplace, which sucks. Halo2, OTOH, had the full live experience.

jaxmkii

01-20-2009, 04:26 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but Halo was the prominent game that brought system linking to the forefront as no other console before that was able to fully take advantage of system linking. If so, then I think this feature should be considered ground-breaking (and on some merits, innovative).

halo did what PCs had been doing since DOOM

Dakota Grabowski

01-20-2009, 04:51 AM

halo did what PCs had been doing since DOOM

Yes, that's commonly known by everyone. But we're talking about home consoles, not the PC platform. I'm unaware of any video game console to feature system linking as heavily as the Xbox did, so there's no real point in bringing in the PC.

Did the dreamcast feature system linking? I remember it had an Ethernet slot, just not aware of any games using the feature.

Sure system linking isn't exactly a highly innovative feature overall, but for video game consoles, it can be viewed that way.

arthur

01-20-2009, 02:35 PM

It doesn't matter that KZ2 doesn't use HDR lighting. It's lighting system already supress that. Technically? No. Graphically by using tricks? Yes! Does it matter that it doesnt us HDR? Nope. Why should it matter when it already look this good?
to you it may not matter, but to some it does.
its just like you may own the ps3 and not like or own other consoles, does that at the end of the day make them irrelevant?
Killzone 2's graphics are astounding and lend themselves to creating an atmosphere but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.gears of wars graphics and atmosphere are also astounding, so too are the graphics on crysis.

Uncharted has brilliant AI, particularly in the harder difficulties, but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.yup

Innovation may be, by it's dictionary definition, a different approach to a familiar problem in which case all of your assertions of innovation are correct, as are the above. thank you.

But when you follow the everyday, pedestrian definition which also seems to the definition used by the general media, the term innovative tends to go hand in hand with the term "revolutionary".a term that also goes hand in hand with the term evolution.

The Wii is innovative because it has introduced a method of control never seen before, same with the Eyetoy.in consoles yes.

Halo was innovative because it brought FPS's to consoles in a way that hadn't really been seen before, particularly its online.only online??

Metal Gear Solid was innovative because it brought the kind of cinematic presentation and story to us that had never been seen before.its been done in JRPG's for quite a long time now

I have no doubt that the games you flagged as innovative all contain very highly polished approaches to graphics, physics, and AI, but innovation is about more than doing something well, it's about implementing and introducing it in a way that's never been seen before (i.e. the iPhone).doent this contradict the meaning of what innovation stands for?

Great HDR lighting will only ever be a natural progression of implementing lighting in games until something such as real-time ray tracing is introduced.a revolution in other words, a different way in which lighting is done compared to the conventional way it is currently. innovation

Realistic physics may well be somewhat within our grasp as of right now, but any progress made in them is merely natural progression until we reach a stage where every object in a game world can behave as its real-world counterpart e.g. we stop solely using solid body physics.again, its progress, and that is what innovation is about isnt it?

Aggressive AI in a shooter or a racing game (seriously arthur?) is only ever going to be a natural progression of implementing AI in games until we reach a point where opponents feel real e.g. they care about their own life.everything about innovation is a progress, that is what you have been saying, thats what your definition and english definition describes it as.

one cant have it both ways, something is either innovative and progressive, or it isnt, thats he bottomline

pari

01-20-2009, 04:00 PM

to you it may not matter, but to some it does.
its just like you may own the ps3 and not like or own other consoles, does that at the end of the day make them irrelevant?
Does the same apply to you too? I see you like 360 and not other consoles..

And this is your quote from earlier post

this comment is made from a biased point of view, halo 3 lighting, forge, A.I, that was innovation.
forza 2, model deformation, physics, A.I, that was innovation.
fable 2, deciding what an entire gaming world wil be over the course of your life is something very few have done, lionhead are the first to take that idea to the next level, INNOVATION.

depends on what ones views are.

gears of wars graphics and atmosphere are also astounding, so too are the graphics on crysis.

And agreed for this quote

Uncharted has brilliant AI, particularly in the harder difficulties, but is that innovation? No, it's simply a highly polished product and approach.

yup

I do not seen any difference between Uncharted and Forza AI, then can we call Forza, Halo, simply a highly polished product and approach?

Innovation and progression need not be one and the same or go together.....

From Wikipedia about FPS

Later in the decade, the arrival of a new generation of home computers such as the Atari ST and the Amiga increased the computing power and graphical capabilities available, leading to a new wave of innovation. 1987 saw the release of MIDI Maze (aka Faceball), an important transitional game for the genre. Unlike its polygonal contemporaries, MIDI Maze used a raycasting engine to speedily draw square corridors. It also offered a networked multiplayer deathmatch (communicating via the computer's MIDI interface).

In early 1991, Data East released Silent Debuggers for the TurboGrafx-16. This game featured a minimum ability to look up and down. In late 1991, the fledgling id Software released Catacomb 3D, which introduced the concept of showing the player's hand on-screen, strengthening the illusion that the player is viewing the world through the character's eyes. In 1992, Ultima Underworld was one of the first to feature texture mapped environments, polygonal objects, and basic lighting. The engine was later enhanced for usage in the game System Shock. Later in 1992, id improved the technology used in Catacomb 3D by adding support for VGA graphics in Wolfenstein 3D. With these improvements over its predecessors, Wolfenstein 3D was a hit. It would be widely imitated in the years to follow, and thus marked the beginning of many conventions in the genre, including collecting different weapons that can be switched between using the keyboard's number keys, and ammo conservation.

The year 2001 was yet another big year for the FPS. Microsoft released the Xbox with a prominent launch title called Halo: Combat Evolved, developed by Bungie Studios. Reviews of Halo praised it for its revolutionary story, level design, weapons, and graphics. Bungie later released Halo's sequel, Halo 2 in 2004. Halo 2 featured online play over Microsoft's new Xbox Live service. It was also praised highly, mainly for its excellent online multiplayer and gameplay. Finally, Bungie released Halo 3 for Microsoft's Xbox 360 in 2007, which was largely the same to Halo 2 in reception. The Halo games, especially the original, Halo: Combat Evolved, along with GoldenEye 007 for the N64, are credited for the rise of FPSs on home consoles. They have been considered among the Half-Life series, GoldenEye, and other major shooters like Doom as one of the shooter greats.

Eye toy, as mentioned earlier is innovative, Eye of Judgment is innovative to the fact that Viva Pinata incorporated similar concept... pokemon card predecessor for both... Even better is the demo video from Sony where people drew tank shape figure and captured by camera.. then this figure was animated by PS3 and used to play the game. Its not sophisticated but its a start that will be used to build games in the future...

arthur

01-20-2009, 05:50 PM

Red_Eyes

01-20-2009, 08:00 PM

That was a very innovative post.

KRA

01-20-2009, 08:38 PM

Because Killzone 2 is, to me, the logical evolution of the cinematic presentation that MGS introduced.

are you talking about cutscenes in MGS ?!
becasue when i was talking about immersion of chaotic war scene
full of little details that you can't even recognise all at a moment
(what i hope will be part of k2 experience and it will feel like a new thing in video games)
i was talking about gameplay and even if you were not talking about cutscenes
i really can't see how is it evolution from mgs

and following your thinking i could say that mgs cinematic presentation
is natural evolution of the presentation from PONG or some board game...
can't i :) ?

OmniCloud

01-20-2009, 11:30 PM

^^^^ touche.

on uncharted, i havent actually played the game, so i did not have anything to go on and add, but an improvement in AI is always going to be innovation on my part.

but innovation and progression go hand in hand mainly because innovation in itself means a progression from the way things were conventionally done to something else that gives better results......people will see inovation differentlyGood post. And I agree with everything up top except for the fact that MGS series didn't introduce a different kind of story/cut-scene into the industry. Most JRPG's told the story through CG effects, but when your playing the game--it looks nothing like it. MGS was a series that introduced the story very nicely into the actual gameplay, that meshed together into a lovely package and seems to be a lot more memorable then a lot of JRPG because of this. I'd consider that innovation.

But yeah, I've played a few titles like Halo/Gears and a tad bit of Fable, but you really should get a PS3 buddy, there's some titles I think you would enjoy a lot.

Btw--I think we simply use the word innovation too much. Progression is a much better term, as innovating is too objective. For example, even though Halo didn't do much new as far as PC gamers go, in the console space it was fresh/fun and recaptured the feel of Golden eye 64 all over again. I would say, that was innovative, how that whole package came together. But the argument could be made that PC's gamers have already experienced that for years.

That's why I think we use the word too much, and need to elaborate with other terms.

frosty

01-20-2009, 11:59 PM

AC!D

01-21-2009, 07:06 PM

just like nintendo didn't innovate with the wiimote, they simply added IR pointer functionality to a controller setup that first saw the light of day on consoles with the PS1's third party 4 axis controller.

I think our point is how innovative game design by Nintendo was and is in incorporating the IR pointer functionality together and actually making physical effort or PT if you will more fun than the real world ever managed to with gym, taibo, karate etc. Not to mention the fact that it has made gaming acessible to those we would never imagine we would see gaming. My mother is nearly sixty and we bond nearly once a week playing bowling on the Wii. Thats innovative, infact thats just awesome. Xbox live has seperated ppl by isolating them alone in their rooms to work with starngers or friends online with games whereas the Wii is bringing the socializing aspects of gaming back by putting ppl back together in a room. Now thats innovation. Add to that that game design by Sony first party for tilt functionality has been really crappy and Nintendo game design is even more impressive.

Dakota Grabowski

01-21-2009, 07:52 PM

Xbox live has seperated ppl by isolating them alone in their rooms to work with starngers or friends online with games whereas the Wii is bringing the socializing aspects of gaming back by putting ppl back together in a room. Now thats innovation.

I think all online gaming does this... sitting in front of my PC game playing matches of Age of Empires 3... or World of Warcraft isn't really helping. The same can be said with PSN or any machine that connects gamers via the net in effort for faux socialization over real-life socialization.

Segitz

01-21-2009, 08:32 PM

I think all online gaming does this... sitting in front of my PC game playing matches of Age of Empires 3... or World of Warcraft isn't really helping. The same can be said with PSN or any machine that connects gamers via the net in effort for faux socialization over real-life socialization.

I wouldn't say this about WoW though, at least from my perspective.

I started playing it, because a friend did... he stopped, I stopped... Some time later, my brother got interested in WoW, because many of his friends played, so he started and I restarted too. We were a group of 15 people, who knew each other in real life and played WoW together.

I know, my experience isn't all powerful, but I guess there are more players like this... For example I usually only play CoD4 with a friend online. It's just more interesting that way (as you can chat about it later on while drinking a beer together in the pub). But I also am not much of an online player too (I guess most people aren't... at least online), I'd rather play together with friends, be it online or splitscreen (which I LOVE, sadly not enough games do it).

Tannhauser

01-21-2009, 10:13 PM

I think our point is how innovative game design by Nintendo was and is in incorporating the IR pointer functionality together and actually making physical effort or PT if you will more fun than the real world ever managed to with gym, taibo, karate etc. Not to mention the fact that it has made gaming acessible to those we would never imagine we would see gaming. My mother is nearly sixty and we bond nearly once a week playing bowling on the Wii. Thats innovative, infact thats just awesome. Xbox live has seperated ppl by isolating them alone in their rooms to work with starngers or friends online with games whereas the Wii is bringing the socializing aspects of gaming back by putting ppl back together in a room. Now thats innovation. Add to that that game design by Sony first party for tilt functionality has been really crappy and Nintendo game design is even more impressive.
:devious:

http://media.gwn.com/articles_mp/126346640344bb2bd026e57.jpg

Sega prototype from 1998.

To be fair I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with what you've said exactly.. there is certainly a potential for some innovative stuff with the Wii controls, but I don't see that Nintendo or any developers have really done a lot with it and I definitely wouldn't say they've accomplished 'impressive game design' yet. It's difficult for them to do that while focusing all their energies on the non-gaming market, but there you go.. businesses go where the most money is.

By the way.. talk about innovation, talk about the Cell Broadband Engine. It's breaking new ground in a big way in the computing industry, and a degree of credit should go to Sony who put up half a $ billion with Toshiba and IBM to make this thing. Intel have already started heading in that direction and AMD are following on, let alone IBM making some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world with it.

Dakota Grabowski

01-21-2009, 10:14 PM

I wouldn't say this about WoW though, at least from my perspective.

I started playing it, because a friend did... he stopped, I stopped... Some time later, my brother got interested in WoW, because many of his friends played, so he started and I restarted too. We were a group of 15 people, who knew each other in real life and played WoW together.

I know, my experience isn't all powerful, but I guess there are more players like this... For example I usually only play CoD4 with a friend online. It's just more interesting that way (as you can chat about it later on while drinking a beer together in the pub). But I also am not much of an online player too (I guess most people aren't... at least online), I'd rather play together with friends, be it online or splitscreen (which I LOVE, sadly not enough games do it).

Well what i am referring to with WoW or any online game is that you are stuck in your house, as are others, and not communicating with people in face-to-face. That is all -- so in effect, WoW is as guilty as the rest.

Segitz

01-21-2009, 10:43 PM

Well what i am referring to with WoW or any online game is that you are stuck in your house, as are others, and not communicating with people in face-to-face. That is all -- so in effect, WoW is as guilty as the rest.

ALL gaming, except handheld, confines you to the space of your home... People should go outside, if they play or not^^ There's life beyond your TV screen (also applicable to internet, tv, radio... ...) and what it displays.

I wouldn't really blame online gaming for it though. It is always what people make of it. It's always your own choice if you play online, splitscreen or alone. Problem is, people are easily seducted into gaming, as it is heavily gratifying... Life "sucks", gaming is fun... no matter if it is on- or offline.

But I get what you are saying.

drakkar

01-21-2009, 11:26 PM

Personally I'd take enjoyment over innovation anyday.

jaxmkii

01-22-2009, 02:11 AM

Yes, that's commonly known by everyone. But we're talking about home consoles, not the PC platform. I'm unaware of any video game console to feature system linking as heavily as the Xbox did, so there's no real point in bringing in the PC.

Did the dreamcast feature system linking? I remember it had an Ethernet slot, just not aware of any games using the feature.

Sure system linking isn't exactly a highly innovative feature overall, but for video game consoles, it can be viewed that way.

i look at PC gaming as the "custom" or "the 4th console"

PCs are just as relevent as the prepackaged consoles. just cause halo was the first to do it on Xbox dose not make it the first.

arthur

01-22-2009, 05:30 PM

Good post. And I agree with everything up top except for the fact that MGS series didn't introduce a different kind of story/cut-scene into the industry. Most JRPG's told the story through CG effects, but when your playing the game--it looks nothing like it. MGS was a series that introduced the story very nicely into the actual gameplay, that meshed together into a lovely package and seems to be a lot more memorable then a lot of JRPG because of this. I'd consider that innovation. well, you have played the game, i havent, so i really dont think i have a huge say in that. i think what is revolutionary is that a lot of titles are now using the game engine to render cutscenes. to me, they have really never mattered whether they wee the same resolution or not

But yeah, I've played a few titles like Halo/Gears and a tad bit of Fable, but you really should get a PS3 buddy, there's some titles I think you would enjoy a lot.i plan to get one in the future when God blesses me with the means to do that.......i at least plan to go on and get it, the means is what is currently out of reach.

Btw--I think we simply use the word innovation too much. Progression is a much better term, as innovating is too objective. For example, even though Halo didn't do much new as far as PC gamers go, in the console space it was fresh/fun and recaptured the feel of Golden eye 64 all over again. I would say, that was innovative, how that whole package came together. But the argument could be made that PC's gamers have already experienced that for years.

That's why I think we use the word too much, and need to elaborate with other terms.
also true