Q
Shared on Tue, 10/10/2006 - 10:57Everybody is a critic. That statement holds true for just about everything including movies, food, television, and (believe it or not) video games. I read quite a bit of gaming news and listen to a lot of gaming podcasts in order to stay informed about the state of games and the industry so I'm exposed to a ton of critics. Even more than that I have discovered that I myself am actaully a video game critic. I definitely have opinions and find myself making counterpoints to journalists views all the time. Hell, that's one of the reasons that I started this blog. Well recently I have been hearing one criticism about M$ and the 360 come up over and over and I want to give my two cents. The criticism is that M$ only has 2 game releases coming out this holiday season that are first party games. My counterpoint...who cares?!
Alright, I admit that it's not a very verbose counterpoint but I like to keep things succinct and direct, and it's actually more poignant than at first glance. Let me expound on my thought and see how you feel about this.
It's true that the only first party titles being released this holiday for the 360 are Gears of War and Viva Pinata but I don't see that as an inherent flaw. I think that those that see it as a flaw view it as such because first party titles are automatically seen as exclusives and exclusives sell systems. I'm not so sure that exclusives sell systems like they used to and the landsape of exclusives is in an industry wide transition now anyways. I'm not going to go into my views on exclusives right now as I plan on that being an article for a later time but suffice to say I don't see it as a valid argumentfor the topic's criticism. I may be able to play Rainbow Six: Vegas and Call of Duty 3 on PS3 this fall but that doesn't mean that it takes away from the 360 lineup. It still puts solid titles on the shelf and enhances a growing library of good games. How can that be a bad thing? Would Call of Duty 3 exclusive on 360 be better? Sure it would but, like I said, the future of exclusives is sketchy and even though you're leaving it up to the consumer to pick which console they want to play it on the game is still going to be a part of a library of games.
Right now I would also go so far as to say that even the games that will be on both 360 and PS3 this Christmas may still be different experiences and therefore can be considered as different titles in each respective library. My reasoning for that is the fact that Sony still hasn't publicly outlined it's online strategy and that is where M$ thrives. There is little doubt that online games are the way of the future and all the game manufacturers know this. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on which console you back) M$ is the king of console online and is really the one that is leading the charge. Until Sony can prove that it can deliver an Xbox Live type of performance for its online enabled games the games that are released for both systems will be different experiences. A glaring example is Tony Hawk 8. Neversoft designed the whole core of the gameplay around it being an online experience yet the PS3 version will not have an online component. That is HUGE! It means that, sure, you can buy Tony Hawk 8 for the 360 or the PS3 but you aren't getting the same game. The PS3 version is going to be neutered version and inferior in many ways to the 360 version. That is the only title we are sure is going to be a different experience on each system but it may not end up being the only one. Online support for PS3 hasn't been announced for Rainbow Six: Vegas or Call of Duty 3 (both of which are coming out very soon) so we'll have to wait and see.
My other point is that maybe M$ realizes that it doesn't have to make all the games themselves to have a good system. That is the traditional way of thinking brought about by the dominance of Nintendo in the 80's. A time when Mario and Zelda ruled the console landscape with a fist full of mushrooms and a boomerang. But times are changing and the industry needs to find ways to change with it. I think that M$ made some good moves by purchasing Bungie and Rare (yes I still think they're a good studio) but they also see that they don't need to own a studio to get a great game. They treat third party developers like they are first party developers by giving them a console that is easy to work on and the support that they need. They have also shown that they can partner with a company without owning it. Epic is a third party developer but is being seen as a first party developer for Gears of War just because M$ is going to publish the game. That is something that they can do in the future to get great games on the system without having to buy up the industry. Maybe in the future they can find lesser known studios and partner with them to get a great game and raise the that studios stock in the industry. It would be win/win.
Lastly I would like to think that M$ is smart enough to know when they can't compete directly. Remember when the Xbox originally launched and they had their own line of sport titles being made by their first pary sport team? Eventually they learned that they just couldn't compete in the market from a first party standpoint and pulled the plug. That was a smart move and one that I was hapy to see. NFL Fever wasn't bad but it certainly wasn't as good as the 2K football titles or even Madden. M$ realized that it didn't necessarily have to be making these games themselves in order to get them on their console and it would be better to stop spinning their wheels trying to play catch up. A big, intelligent decision like that gives me hope that M$ is smart enough to know what they have to do in this industry to compete.
In the end M$ is a good, solid, smart company that has every intension of trying to claw their way to number one in the console market. I'm not sure they will ever make it but their drive and perseverance give me confidence in their product and the future for the system. Just because they don't make a lot of games themselves doesn't mean anything in this new gaming landscape that we are entering. All that matters is that there are good, fun games added to the library on a continuous basis to give everyone plenty to play in their spare time. I don't need them to give me first party titles as long as the third party titles are handled with first party care and deliver a fun experience. And don't forget that until Sony can prove it's online strategy is going to be viable and able to compete with Live M$ is going to have an advantage in every muti-platform title released. Thake that Kaz!
Alright, I admit that it's not a very verbose counterpoint but I like to keep things succinct and direct, and it's actually more poignant than at first glance. Let me expound on my thought and see how you feel about this.
It's true that the only first party titles being released this holiday for the 360 are Gears of War and Viva Pinata but I don't see that as an inherent flaw. I think that those that see it as a flaw view it as such because first party titles are automatically seen as exclusives and exclusives sell systems. I'm not so sure that exclusives sell systems like they used to and the landsape of exclusives is in an industry wide transition now anyways. I'm not going to go into my views on exclusives right now as I plan on that being an article for a later time but suffice to say I don't see it as a valid argumentfor the topic's criticism. I may be able to play Rainbow Six: Vegas and Call of Duty 3 on PS3 this fall but that doesn't mean that it takes away from the 360 lineup. It still puts solid titles on the shelf and enhances a growing library of good games. How can that be a bad thing? Would Call of Duty 3 exclusive on 360 be better? Sure it would but, like I said, the future of exclusives is sketchy and even though you're leaving it up to the consumer to pick which console they want to play it on the game is still going to be a part of a library of games.
Right now I would also go so far as to say that even the games that will be on both 360 and PS3 this Christmas may still be different experiences and therefore can be considered as different titles in each respective library. My reasoning for that is the fact that Sony still hasn't publicly outlined it's online strategy and that is where M$ thrives. There is little doubt that online games are the way of the future and all the game manufacturers know this. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on which console you back) M$ is the king of console online and is really the one that is leading the charge. Until Sony can prove that it can deliver an Xbox Live type of performance for its online enabled games the games that are released for both systems will be different experiences. A glaring example is Tony Hawk 8. Neversoft designed the whole core of the gameplay around it being an online experience yet the PS3 version will not have an online component. That is HUGE! It means that, sure, you can buy Tony Hawk 8 for the 360 or the PS3 but you aren't getting the same game. The PS3 version is going to be neutered version and inferior in many ways to the 360 version. That is the only title we are sure is going to be a different experience on each system but it may not end up being the only one. Online support for PS3 hasn't been announced for Rainbow Six: Vegas or Call of Duty 3 (both of which are coming out very soon) so we'll have to wait and see.
My other point is that maybe M$ realizes that it doesn't have to make all the games themselves to have a good system. That is the traditional way of thinking brought about by the dominance of Nintendo in the 80's. A time when Mario and Zelda ruled the console landscape with a fist full of mushrooms and a boomerang. But times are changing and the industry needs to find ways to change with it. I think that M$ made some good moves by purchasing Bungie and Rare (yes I still think they're a good studio) but they also see that they don't need to own a studio to get a great game. They treat third party developers like they are first party developers by giving them a console that is easy to work on and the support that they need. They have also shown that they can partner with a company without owning it. Epic is a third party developer but is being seen as a first party developer for Gears of War just because M$ is going to publish the game. That is something that they can do in the future to get great games on the system without having to buy up the industry. Maybe in the future they can find lesser known studios and partner with them to get a great game and raise the that studios stock in the industry. It would be win/win.
Lastly I would like to think that M$ is smart enough to know when they can't compete directly. Remember when the Xbox originally launched and they had their own line of sport titles being made by their first pary sport team? Eventually they learned that they just couldn't compete in the market from a first party standpoint and pulled the plug. That was a smart move and one that I was hapy to see. NFL Fever wasn't bad but it certainly wasn't as good as the 2K football titles or even Madden. M$ realized that it didn't necessarily have to be making these games themselves in order to get them on their console and it would be better to stop spinning their wheels trying to play catch up. A big, intelligent decision like that gives me hope that M$ is smart enough to know what they have to do in this industry to compete.
In the end M$ is a good, solid, smart company that has every intension of trying to claw their way to number one in the console market. I'm not sure they will ever make it but their drive and perseverance give me confidence in their product and the future for the system. Just because they don't make a lot of games themselves doesn't mean anything in this new gaming landscape that we are entering. All that matters is that there are good, fun games added to the library on a continuous basis to give everyone plenty to play in their spare time. I don't need them to give me first party titles as long as the third party titles are handled with first party care and deliver a fun experience. And don't forget that until Sony can prove it's online strategy is going to be viable and able to compete with Live M$ is going to have an advantage in every muti-platform title released. Thake that Kaz!
Comments