Fortune Magazine: How Nintendo is beating Sony and Microsoft

[Arnwyn]

I wonder how many developers can afford to make games that do that? Does all that space to fill have the unintended effect of 'raising the bar' too high for smaller developers?

Probably not a tremendously huge number - especially if some developers are saying that the 360 and PS3 are "over-engineered" and the like. It could certainly shut out smaller developers.

But remember - if it were entirely up to developers, they'd only be making flash games and charging $60 for them. (There's been more than a few developers who have said [sometimes accidentally and/or candidly] "we'd prefer to make short, simple games! Big epic games are too hard!" Well, no duh, sherlocks. But, not surprisingly, a significant number of consumers want them, so suck it up.)

My first reaction to this was "Neat!". My second, a few seconds later, was "How does this add any real value to the product?". Sure, it drives home the point that Blu-Ray has a lot of storage capacity, but unless the customer really wants both the film and the software, they're left paying for content they don't want.

Well, no, they're not. It's a bonus - the price of the game is the same (ie. it's a cross-platform game with the same price). Free bonus material is almost always appreciated by the masses.

 

[drothgery]

Sony has to be nuts to not heavily incent developers to use the blu-ray's space, which is a competitive advantage for them - though it is increasing, but very very slowly (see the PS3's version of Stranglehold, which includes the entire Hard Boiled movie on it).

The thing is that there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD Xbox 360 games (and in fact, Blue Dragon is one), and three DVD9s are still cheaper than one BD.

 

[Vigilance]

Probably not a tremendously huge number - especially if some developers are saying that the 360 and PS3 are "over-engineered" and the like. It could certainly shut out smaller developers.

I think it will depend on the PS3's market share mostly. Developing for the PS3 is the most expensive, especially if you're going to make a huge game that fills a BD. Publishers will continue to develop for the 360 and port to the PS3, thus eliminating the advantage of the extra storage, until the PS3 becomes a major player in the market.

As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?

The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base.

But remember - if it were entirely up to developers, they'd only be making flash games and charging $60 for them. (There's been more than a few developers who have said [sometimes accidentally and/or candidly] "we'd prefer to make short, simple games! Big epic games are too hard!" Well, no duh, sherlocks. But, not surprisingly, a significant number of consumers want them, so suck it up.)

No, the so-called "hardcore" gamers want them. Now don't get me wrong, I'm *IN* that group, but there's a much, much larger market for casual games. Moms who want something they can play for 30 minutes and put away, and/or for the younger set.

Us hardcore gamers might bitch about all the mini-game compilations, but they have been selling extremely well, especially in Japan.

Well, no, they're not. It's a bonus - the price of the game is the same (ie. it's a cross-platform game with the same price). Free bonus material is almost always appreciated by the masses.

That's cool, and it's a great idea, the type of thing the BD needs to do imo. If you look at the initial offerings Sony put out for BD, it was laughable. I mean, Hitch? Who the heck wants to watch Hitch (at a significantly higher price no less) on BD as opposed to DVD?

When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.

 

[drothgery]

As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?

The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base.

More than that, as per above, making a 9GB+ game doesn't limit you to the PS3. There were tons of multi-CD PS1 games (pretty much every RPG), a handful of multi-DVD PS2 and Xbox games, and there's at least one multi-DVD9 360 game. I doubt it's all that difficult to make a 3 DVD 360 version and 1 BD PS3 version.

That's cool, and it's a great idea, the type of thing the BD needs to do imo. If you look at the initial offerings Sony put out for BD, it was laughable. I mean, Hitch? Who the heck wants to watch Hitch (at a significantly higher price no less) on BD as opposed to DVD?

When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.

Heck, while I'm sure DS9 would be beautiful in HD if it had been filmed that way to start with, I really don't think it was. Of course, I don't have an HDTV quite yet.

 

[John Crichton]

When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.

They weren't taped in HD, so those particular series would probably fit but only look a little better. Now a newer series, like Lost, that was was filmed in HD would probably need the same or a similar amount of discs for all the uncompressed video and audio. They usually fit 4 eps/DVD these days so the same would probably hold true on BR/HD-DVD. Maybe they could squish it a bit, but why bother.

I get your point, tho concerning space. Just sayin'.

 

[Vigilance]

They weren't taped in HD, so those particular series would probably fit but only look a little better. Now a newer series, like Lost, that was was filmed in HD would probably need the same or a similar amount of discs for all the uncompressed video and audio. They usually fit 4 eps/DVD these days so the same would probably hold true on BR/HD-DVD. Maybe they could squish it a bit, but why bother.

I get your point, tho concerning space. Just sayin'.

Well, space is a concern. I buy slimline DVD packs when available for space.

And I've seen DVDs on HDTVs and they look great. Im sure a lot of that is the TV, but watching DVD on a HDTV looks mighty nice to me, especially if it's on a progressive scan DVD player.

But basically, it is the space in this issue. And I think it's something BD should take more advantage of. Blowing everything up to 1080p, keeping the 4 eps per disc paradigm and just saying "ooo it looks a little better" doesn't really do it for me.

Yes, I'd rather have Buffy in standard def on 7 discs than in high def on 49.

Reducing storage is an attractive feature of new media, when manufacturers will let us (they seem afraid of doing so- not sure why). Id buy the complete Ray Charles catalogue on a single DVD for twice what Id pay for it in another format.

 

[John Crichton]

Well, space is a concern. I buy slimline DVD packs when available for space.

Well, duh. Who doesn't?

And I've seen DVDs on HDTVs and they look great. Im sure a lot of that is the TV, but watching DVD on a HDTV looks mighty nice to me, especially if it's on a progressive scan DVD player.

Upconverted DVDs can look very nice, for sure. Progressive scan isn't what does it, it's up-converting, just so ya know.

But basically, it is the space in this issue. And I think it's something BD should take more advantage of. Blowing everything up to 1080p, keeping the 4 eps per disc paradigm and just saying "ooo it looks a little better" doesn't really do it for me.

No, it doesn't look a little better, it looks much better and it looks much better on a bigger screen.

Yes, I'd rather have Buffy in standard def on 7 discs than in high def on 49.

You, sure. I'd rather have it the other way around. See, we all have opinions. I'd love to have it all on one disc for ease of use, but that isn't the way it works and wouldn't serve all consumers.

Reducing storage is an attractive feature of new media, when manufacturers will let us (they seem afraid of doing so- not sure why). Id buy the complete Ray Charles catalogue on a single DVD for twice what Id pay for it in another format.

So would I. That said, there is a reason why most companies don't do that just yet. It's all about the money.

Someday, we'll have little chips or discs or cards or whatever that hold scads of information. But it isn't there yet nor is the full quality of these mediums really coming through when the data is compressed to fit on these older type discs. We'll see uncompressed audio/video before we'll see more stuff put onto less discs. The bean counters like it that way, too.

 

[Arnwyn]

As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?

The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base.

*shrug* Blue Dragon is already three DVDs. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it won't continue happening.

No, the so-called "hardcore" gamers want them.

That's what I said. I said "a significant number of consumers want them", and that's true - the sales of Halo, GoW, and Final Fantasy shows that I continue to be correct. There is no "no".

(Yes, there is certainly a very large market for casual games, but there is also a large enough market for 'epic' games that there's money to be made. In any case, the sales numbers don't lie.)

The thing is that there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD Xbox 360 games (and in fact, Blue Dragon is one), and three DVD9s are still cheaper than one BD.

No idea what your point is, and why you bothered to respond to my post. I think it's patently obvious that multiple DVD games are going to be de rigueur a little while from now. Some people like continually switching out multiple discs, some don't. Whether developers will bother putting bonus material in when it means yet another disc remains to be seen. Stranglehold won't, in any case.

 

[drothgery]

*shrug* Blue Dragon is already three DVDs. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it won't continue happening.

And Blue Dragon is an RPG with tons of FMV.

The thing is that there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD Xbox 360 games (and in fact, Blue Dragon is one), and three DVD9s are still cheaper than one BD.

No idea what your point is, and why you bothered to respond to my post. I think it's patently obvious that multiple DVD games are going to be de rigueur a little while from now. Some people like continually switching out multiple discs, some don't. Whether developers will bother putting bonus material in when it means yet another disc remains to be seen. Stranglehold won't, in any case.

You seemed to imply pretty strongly that the extra storage space of a BD vs a DVD9 was a significant advantage. The only time storage space has played out as big advantage in the console wars was with PS1 vs N64, and there CDs were both much cheaper and held more data than cartridges (effectively indefinitely more, as per the plethora of multi-CD PS1 games).

My point was that it's not, because, like Vigilance, I think only extremely FMV-heavy games need more than a DVD9 worth of space for graphics this generation of consoles are capable of handling (which is 720p for anything of non-trivial complexity at a decent frame rate), and because there's no cost advantage to going with 1 BD vs 3 DVD9s. I expect multi-DVD9 Xbox 360 games to be slightly more common than multi-DVD PS2/Xbox games (heck, most PS2 games could fit on a CD), but nowhere near as common as multi-CD PS1 games.

 

[Vigilance]

Via gamespot...

Outside pressure continues to mount for Sony this week as one more game-industry exec calls for a PlayStation 3 price drop. Speaking to Reuters on Monday, Sega corporate director Masanao Maeda said that Sony's best shot for increasing demand of its next-gen console is a price cut by the end of the year.

According to the Reuters interview, Maeda believes brand recognition, price point, and software availability factor most importantly into selling consoles. With Sony's flagship system no longer backed by superior software exclusives, Maeda asserts a "superior marketing and pricing strategy will be the key for Sony."

In the past year, Sony has seen many of its assumed exclusives head to competitors' consoles, including Assassin's Creed, Devil May Cry 4, and Grand Theft Auto 4. Other longtime Sony exclusives, such as Square Enix's Final Fantasy series, have also recently been called into question.

Maeda isn't the only industry executive with grumblings about Sony's PS3 business. In May, Yves Guillemot, CEO of France-based publisher Ubisoft, expressed similar dissatisfaction with the PS3, saying the console's price needs to be lowered "quite significantly" as it is putting off many would-be buyers.

Hmmm... looks like Sega and Ubisoft think the price is a problem. Square has sort of said the same thing.