TD Gaming Podcast 84: A Mount That Poops

This week we take a walk back in retro gaming history at Super Mario World, covering a bunch of great user questions and chat a bit about our favorite RTS of all time based on a user question. In the news this week:

We also announce the winner of Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords – Collectors Edition! This show was packed with content and material, we had to hold off on the Gaming History for this week, but we’ll hit it next week.

0 thoughts on “TD Gaming Podcast 84: A Mount That Poops”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Bethesda’s Hines: Don’t Shoehorn MultiplayerBethesda’s Hines: Don’t Shoehorn Multiplayer

Bethesda Softworks vice president of marketing Pete Hines is critzing publishers and developers who shoehorn multiplayer into their games that doing such a thing is “a waste of time” and advises, “Just drop it, don’t bother…it’ll make for a worse game.”

In an interview with Next Gen BIZ, Hines states that using online multiplayer as a tool to prevent used game trade-ins and rental simply doesn’t work, and robs developers of valuable man-hours.

Hines stated:

“(People ask us) for a game like Skyrim or Prey 2, why doesn’t it have multiplayer? Well, our question is always the opposite when we talk to a developer. If you’re doing multiplayer, why are you doing multiplayer? What are you trying to accomplish?

“If you’re doing it just to check a box or because every other publisher says you’ve got to have multiplayer, then just drop it, don’t bother, it’s a waste of time, a giant distraction and it’ll make for a worse overall game.

“We want the best game possible. If that’s a singleplayer game that’s 15 to 20 hours, then make that! Don’t waste your time on features that don’t make the game better.”

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Prey 2 are two Bethesda properties that will lack multiplayer, but one of the tools to encourage games to keep both games will be downlodable content and, even more important, good communications with the game communities and nurturing the fandom for both games.

TD Gaming Podcast 80: 2600 In a Trash BagTD Gaming Podcast 80: 2600 In a Trash Bag

This weeks gaming podcast, we’re talking a bit about E3 but not enough to make you sick. We’re curious to the fate of the E3 event, is it really done or will it live on? We’re finishing up the RPG history and we take a look back at the Atari title KABOOM! Was he catching bombs with a box, barrel or pie?

Also in the gaming podcast news:

We’ve also got a listener comment pointing out where Jennifer is wrong about rhythm matching games and give away Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords.

Please take our podcast survey!

PlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About ProfitabilityPlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About Profitability

The Xbox 360 price drop rumors flow like water and it’s all but officially been announced at this point. What about PlayStation 3 and their price? No.

Nobuyuki Oneda, the Sony’s chief financial officer said, “our plan is not to reduce the price. Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability.” (gamespot) This makes complete sense coming from their chief financial officer, as their motivation is to make money, not lose it.

The question remains, how will they actually make money if they’re no longer in the race for competitive market prices? Considering game licensing must Net them some amount of profit Sony’s idea seems to be the exact opposite of their original PlayStation method: saturate the market and sell them all games.

So far we’ve seen very few “need to have” games for the PlayStation 3 console while Xbox 360 continues to build a substantial library and Wii continues to break sales records for apparently no reason. When a game publisher has to decide on a platform to launch a new game, why would they choose the one that doesn’t care to be competitively priced in the market? The one that doesn’t care about quantity of sales?

Sony intends to reverse the entire razor blade philosophy where one sells a cheap razor and charges users for the blades over and over again. Their take on this concept is to sell really expensive razors and put out small half-quality blades. Is that a good market strategy at this point?