[geeks] End of the line for CompUSA

[Nadine Miller]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> To answer Micha's point alone, consoles are not limited to a joystick
> and/or a mouse. Although the original Playstation had proprietary 
> "controler" ports, there were all sorts of thrid party devices.
> The PS/2 and now I assume the PS/3 have USB ports. The /2 had both.
> 
> I don't know what was on the X-BOX, having never seen one, as they
> were not legally sold here, but I assume they and the latest have 
> USB ports. I was in a computer store last week and they had an
> X-BOX 360 controller with a USB interface for PCs. :-)

Unfortunately, though, the USB ports don't "just work" by including the 
support libraries in the build.  The games have to be specifically coded 
to support keyboard/mouse, for instance.

There was a huge backlash from the hardcore gamers when 989 Studios 
(Sony 1st party developer studio) did not include support for keyboard & 
mouse in the first SoCom--especially given the comments by the studio 
producer that this was to "level the playing field".  SoCom sales were 
not as good as expected as a result.  Needless to say, SoCom 2 included 
keyboard & mouse support.

> Look at all of the stuff you can get for a WII. 

What's really sad is that 1st party R&D at Sony has had Wii-like game 
controls (via firewire and usb cameras) in development since *before* 
2000!  And their test groups showed that people were *very* interested 
in games that did not use the controller.

But in classic Sony fashion, this kind of knowledge languished, I can 
only presume due to the "hardcore" folks running the show not realizing 
they could leverage the research to reach casual gamers who hate the 
controller.  Coupled with not knowing how to market to those people even 
if they did--to wit, the EyeToy pretty much dying on the vine.

About the only "alternative" controllers currently successful on the PS2 
& Xbox are the bemani types (see: GuitarHero, etc).

> Bear in mind that the console game market is different than the PC
> market. People buy games for themselves and many are bought as gifts.
> What sells a game is not flash, spectular sound, graphics, etc. What
> sells a game is "fun". If people enjoy playing the game, it will sell.
> If gameplay sucks, no one will buy it, no matter how good it sounds
> or looks.
> 
> The console game market is different than the PC game market. There is some
> crossover, but not as much as you would think. Different people buy console
> games for different reasons than PC games. 

Relative to my comments above, I think the Wii has been more 
successfully marketed for a number of reasons.  Nintendo gets slagged a 
lot for not being "hardcore", but their brand recognition in Japan for 
family fare gives them more insight into the broader market that I don't 
think Sony (and definitely not M$) have.  For example, the early web IP 
that was put out by Nintendo for the Wii--families (children, couples, 
older people) picking up the controller and playing the games, laughing, 
and having fun.  Very little was shown *of the content*.  It's a 
different approach that appeals to more people.  Price point is also a 
differentiator.

As my computer systems age, I find myself playing more console games.  I 
have zero interest in building a computer to run Vista just for gaming. 
  I do wish there were more (any) role-playing oriented games that were 
multi-player co-op--this is the big annoyance to me with consoles.  It's 
also an issue with computer games, though less of one.  And I'm just not 
going to shelling out cash for online multi-player rpgs--I'd go back to 
text-based MUDs/MOOs/etc first.

=Nadine=