 |
|
|
|
Next: Ps3 & RSX
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: alt>games>video>sony-playstation2, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 510
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am
Post subject: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter?
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Think about it. Since when have launch titles ever been the indicator of a
system's success or failure?
The Atari 2600 came with Combat, and you could buy Air-Sea Battle, Basic
Math, Blackjack, Indy 500, Starship, Street Racer, Surround, and Video
Olympics. Pretty boring (and primitive) compared to Asteroids, Space
Invaders, Adventure, Pitfall!, Yar's Revenge, Solaris, and all the other
games to come.
In Japan, the NES (Famicom) launched with only Donkey Kong, DK Jr., and
Popeye. The GameBoy launch in Japan didn't even have Tetris. Both of those
systems were huge successes. The SNES US launch had Super Mario World,
Pilotwings, and F-Zero, and the N64 had just *two* games--Pilotwings 64 and
Super Mario 64. Despite critics lauding SM64 as the greatest game ever,
sales of the N64 paled in comparison to the PlayStation.
Personally, I think the best library of launch titles belonged to the
Dreamcast...and Sega pulled the plug on it in the US a mere two years later.
The PS2 launch titles were mostly lame--Fantavision anyone?--although I did
have fun with SSX, Smuggler's Run, and TimeSplitters. And, beside Halo (and
maybe PGR), what Xbox launch titles were worth playing? Air Force Delta
Storm and Mad Dash Racing? I don't think so.
The point is, launch titles have never been indicative of a system's future
success or failure. And with development costs so high these days, it is no
wonder that the majority of 360, PS3, and Wii launch titles are not
exclusive to that system. The 360 had Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Condemned,
Amped 3, Quake 4, and PGR3 as console exclusives...and of those, only Kameo
and Condemned weren't sequels. So it doesn't bother me that the PS3 only
has Full Auto 2, Untold Legends, Resistance, and Genji as console
exclusives...and the launch library will have nothing to do with whether or
not the system succeeds or fails. >> Stay informed about: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 81
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 81
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 81
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 81
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 81
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Since When Do Launch Titles Matter? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | So, what PS3 titles are people eagerly awaiting? (aka, sys.. - Usually it takes a killer app or two to drive a console's sales. As a result, I am curious what titles that will be coming out for the PS3 (aka launch or within a year of launch) are people here eagerly awaiting that is actually motivating them to get..
Hey Blig Merk, what PS3 titles you eagerly awaiting? - Since the Three Shitty is well, "shitty" in your opinion, you must be uberstoked for the killer lineup that will launch for the PS3. So, tell the world what must have PS3 titles you are going to get when the system comes out. - Richard Hutnik
This is Blu-ray launch week - Blu-ray movies officially go on sale today and the Samsung BD-P1000 player officially goes on sale next weekend. But, lots of people in different areas have been getting Blu-ray movies and players early in different areas of the country. The AVS Forum is...
PS3 official launch news - The PS3 official launch news doesn't bother me. So, the schedule slipped to Holiday 2006. That happens in the game industry, no big news there. It sounds like there were manufacturing difficulties with the RSX that took a couple more months to resolve..
PS3 official launch news - The PS3 official launch news doesn't bother me. So, the schedule slipped to Holiday 2006. That happens in the game industry, no big news there. It sounds like there were manufacturing difficulties with the RSX that took a couple more months to resolve.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
