Metareview - Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis (Xbox 360)
When Rockstar announced their top secret new game, gamers were floored that the San Diego branch of the house that GTA built had traded in their baseball bats for ping pong paddles with Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis. Big question is, how did they do with this smaller-scale, (relatively) budget-priced title? According to the reviews that are beginning to appear, pretty darned well. The complaints focus on the title's sparse feature set while the praise focuses on the Xbox Live integration and the tight, elegant gameplay. Seriously, read through the reviews if you have a particular affinity for the words "subtle" and "nuanced." According to the reviews, Table Tennis provides a streamlined sports sim that's short on features but full of subtle gameplay, reflected in the (next-gen) budget price of $39.99.
- IGN (78/100) - "If you want a table tennis game that's strictly focused on great mechanics and addictive gameplay, but that lacks a reasonable single-player mode and is shockingly sparse, Rockstar Presents Table Tennis is your game."
- GamePro (85/100) - "The best thing about the gameplay is that it's all about reflex and intuition -- accessible to all, but hard to master online competitive play. Setting up power shots, killer topspin, and hitting the corners of the table becomes easy in short amount of time. This game is an instant classic and is guaranteed to please the masses."
- Eurogamer (90/100) - "It's the sign of a great sports game when you can't think of anything you'd want to change in the next version. It doesn't need another version."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Clay @ May 23rd 2006 10:06PM
I guess it's sort of sad, but I really want to buy this game. Maybe I'm in the Eurogamer boat, but I think it rocks. I mean, it's so simple, but so awesome.
Stu @ May 23rd 2006 10:12PM
Nothing about that IGN excerpt seems to justify a 78/100. Especially with a comment like "but that lacks a reasonable single-player mode and is shockingly sparse". That seems like more of a below 50/100 kinda comment.
Einhanderkiller@gmail.com @ May 23rd 2006 10:16PM
Isn't it Metacritic, not Metareview?
freecajunlove @ May 23rd 2006 10:24PM
86.3% on gamerankings.com
Stukodokka @ May 23rd 2006 10:28PM
I just got done with a 4 hour play session with this game. All I can say is wow. It is worth the semi-budget price most definitely. There is a steep learning curve to be good, but even if you arent good, its still fun.
The depth is great, as there are so many moves and tricks you need to learn. But the play style between each character is totally unique.
Online is great, and the spectator mode is a very nice addition. The tournaments are long and very intense.
Overall, I must recommend this to any 360 owner. The price, gameplay, depth, and sheer fun factor more than outweigh some of the few few flaws and shallowness it may show on the surface.
Khidr @ May 23rd 2006 10:30PM
well, the whole review seems to square out, and seemed pretty fair to me... it's an amazing mechanic, with very little to do other than play table tennis.
As an aside, the vibration, which alerts you to when your aim is going to miss the table is extremely intuitive, and probably the best conceptualization of this mechanic I've seen in a raquet game.
btw... when did 40.00 become "budget" priced? (I know in a world of 60.00 games it's less, but I wouldn't call it "budget")
Imadogg99 @ May 23rd 2006 11:03PM
What's your definition of "budget-priced"?
Pete @ May 23rd 2006 11:06PM
$20.00
J-Dawg @ May 23rd 2006 11:15PM
Something affordable to those of us lacking large disposable incomes. Examples include: The 2k sports series, which sold for $20.
Kasunaga @ May 23rd 2006 11:26PM
Well, with the current $50 games, budget titles go for $20.
20 is 40% of 50, so if we take 40% of 60, budget priced titles for the next generation should be $25.
OpnickC @ May 23rd 2006 11:36PM
$50 is too much for most games. $60 is way too much.
You want gaming to go mainstream? A cool controller is helpful, but I think having $20 be the standard game price and $10 being budget (like movies) would help a lot more. Cheaper game machines would help too.
Ethan Thomas @ May 24th 2006 12:29AM
I bought this game today. I played it for about four hours. I will say that the graphics are good, but overall I was let down. The sheer repitition of it all begins to kick in after the first hour, and the A.I. is extremely unbalanced. For instance, if you play a best of three games, the A.I. will suck for the first game, be just good enough to beat you in the second game, and shut you out in the third round. I was hoping for a quick pick up and play title, but the control takes forever to master. I still haven't even come close. Sure, challenge is a gaming necessity, but so is realism. The computer returns shots in this game that in reality would simply be unreturnable. To resist going into a full review here (I have one posted on Gamespot), let's just say that if you want to play table tennis in increments with friends, this could be fun. But the Xbox Live portion suffers from lag at times, which is horrible for the game because on your screen, your opponent is stationary, but yet, you two are smacking the ball back and forth. ???. It's a neat idea, just not very well executed. I gave it a 4.8 out of 10 on Gamespot. I stand by that.
P.S. - Budget-priced to me means $19.99
Crosswayboy @ May 24th 2006 12:32AM
"So what are some of your interests?"
"I likah play table tennis... I likah shoot dog."
"Snoop Dogg?"
"No, shoot. Dog. Shoot."
"Oh...kay..."
dredub @ May 24th 2006 12:57AM
There is a big difference between movies and video games. Video games provide the consumer with hours of gameplay and usually have a replay value. With a 10-20 dollar movie you are usually done after 2 hours. So when a publisher has a game that is so-so as far as depth is concerned it is expected they offer it at a reduced price.
"Budget" pricing in general is bad for the industry, and in the long run it's bad for the consumer. All you have to do is look how TakeTwo ruined the sports genre with their budget pricing. Their budget pricing caused EA to start everyone down "Exclusive" street. Budget pricing affects the people who make the games, who for the most part are underpaid.
Not that I want to pay $60 bucks for a game, but I can accept the price because I will probably get at least 20 hours of game play out of it and for $3 an hour I am fine with that. After reading though the current set of "OMG $600" articles and posts on Joystiq I can't help but think that we as consumers are expecting too much from the companies in terms of pricing. When you think about how much you will use your Wii, 360 or PS3, it wouldn’t be hard to justify spending 600 or more dollars on it. Not to sound like Kutaragi, you should want to save up to buy the systems if you like games. We can't just expect the game companies to hand over the consoles and games at such a loss that we can afford it by trading in a few games. If they took losses like that they may not be around to make a sequel to that game that you love. Nobody would invest in the companies if they were breaking the bank to basically give their software away.
I am not asking you to like the prices just try and figure out the math and you will see that those $20 games are not going to pay the development team. TakeTwo used it to try and knock madden off of its pedestal, and all that did was cause the games to go exclusive and the prices to rise back to what they were before.
I figure games might cost less if the stores had to pay the developers when they resell used games. But that’s another rant.
Don Jose @ May 24th 2006 12:59AM
Going into it knowing what it is (and expecting it to be kind of sparse in single-player mode), I'd give it at least a 90/100. I have a ping pong table in my living room, and, having spent many hour doing the real thing, I'd say Rockstar's done a great job with this game.
Don Jose @ May 24th 2006 1:01AM
Crosswayboy...Borat...LOL!
Knoxximus @ May 24th 2006 1:08AM
....I'm sold.
OpnickC @ May 24th 2006 1:14AM
dredub -
Video games indeed give a much better value than movies. I agree completely, and that wasn't really my point.
$50 is a lot of money. Do I get my money's worth? Depends. Depends on if the game is good. It depends on if I actually get around to playing the game a lot. And for the average consumer, $50 is an astronomical price of admission.
No other form of entertainment charges so much. Yes, it may be a better value, but it may not, depending on the game.
This is why I'm an advocate of episodic content. The price of admission is cheaper, and if you don't like the game, you simply don't buy the rest of it.
And as far as value in episodic games, look at half life 2. The game took about 15 hours to beat. HL2 EP1 is supposed to take about 6 hrs to beat. The games cost $50 and $20, respectively. At this pricing and completion time, both games have the exact same value. Except the episodic game is cheaper to begin with.
Lower prices + Same Value = Higher Consumer appeal
oz @ May 24th 2006 1:20AM
The Chinese gamers would probably love it-they are the undisputed world champs at ping pong, no question about it. If they want to do something in a Euro-Eastern flavor tho why don't they bring out a cricket game? You'd have the best of all worlds then-your bots can run around willy-nilly wearing jockstraps and hardhats and still be able to wack the living shit out of a 300 mph ball with even bigger paddles! Hot stuff! lol!lol!
neale @ May 24th 2006 1:27AM
"It's the sign of a great sports game when you can't think of anything you'd want to change in the next version. It doesn't need another version."
brilliant comment. cant wait for this to arrive. dont care about single player, i just want some multiplayer mayhem
can i ask someone who has it, how fast does this game get? does it go ridiculous fast that your both squeelin sitting on the edge of your seats? thats what i want!
Crosswayboy @ May 24th 2006 2:14AM
I have it and I'd say it's very fast-paced and addictive. When I played against someone online we had a great time learning each other's style, and adapting accordingly. Online play was also incredibly smooth as I hardly noticed any sign of lag.
I played through the tutorials first as well as a match against a Medium AI opponent and I must say it feels very satisfying to score a point, especially after a long dramatic rally with lots of slams and near misses.
So far I'm very satisfied with my purchase, I can see it becoming a big hit (no pun intended) with some friends over.
Adam @ May 24th 2006 2:22AM
I, for one, applaud Rockstar for not releasing yet another boring, derivitive sandbox game. Table Tennis is a wonderful combination of speed, reflex, easy to learn yet hard to master gameplay and beautiful graphics. It's well worth the $40 they're charging. I hope every Xbox 360 gamer who appreciates excellent gameplay will vote with his or her wallet and purchase this game.
SeNiLe @ May 24th 2006 2:54AM
If you have a problem paying $40 for this title then pay $30 here:
http://www.outpost.com/entry?site=op:mfe031406&sku=4792759
or even better print this scan of Sundays ad and price match to BestBuy or Circuit City:
http://tapchivitinh.com/forum/download.php?id=32
I'm going to get this game tomorrow. It looks fun.
demonsun @ May 24th 2006 3:09AM
#12, Any body here play table tennis?
Anybody?
I have watched games in which both players are about 10 feet away from the end ofthe table, there are even out of bounds rules so that te players don't get too far from the table.
After playing this for a couple hours, I really like this game, it does have a steep learning curve, but for a game like his it's a plus. Most tennis games are too easy and this makes a good effort to stand out, by not just being the same as the rest, but with a nice complexity on top of it.
Evilsmevil @ May 24th 2006 3:38AM
Just thought i should point out (although it is hinted at in the post), Rockstar San Diego are NOT the people who did GTA, they developed Midnight club 3 and red dead revolver. Rockstar NORTH (formerly DMA design before it was bought by rockstar some years ago) are the people responsible for the GTA series and they are based in Edinburgh, Scotland!
neale @ May 24th 2006 4:52AM
ameen you fa****, your forgeting that the hd-dvd is optional, OPTIONAL!!!!!!!! how many god damn times must this be said! like many others, i dont have HDTV, and i dont intend to rebuy my films. blu-ray and hd-dvd has absaloutly no use to me at all. AT ALL. why should i pay for bluray up front when ill never take advantage of it?
" will be probably abo"
probaly? probaly? your making shit up now.
please please please stop the "my console is better" posts. theyre driving me mad!
go bum boots
vrf @ May 24th 2006 4:55AM
Ameen, if you're going to go inserting your little fanboy essays, at least wait until they're relevant to the point at hand.
neale @ May 24th 2006 4:59AM
cheers for the reviews guys. cant wait for this.
and ameen, ive re-read what you wrote and you've totally changed my mind...
ignore the last comment i wrote
me @ May 24th 2006 5:10AM
Xbox 360
Features: I can walk into a store and buy one today
PS3
Features: Overhyped vaporware
Bottomline:
If I want to buy Table Tennis, which is what this thread is about, I have to buy a 360.
P.S.- MS has hinted at a sub $200 HD-DVD add on. Don't be surprised to see it between $100 and $150.
James @ May 24th 2006 7:02AM
Is a 360 wifi adaptor really $100?
That seems rather ridiculous seeing as though it's standard on the PS3 and even on the budget Wii.
phil @ May 24th 2006 7:03AM
any ideas if this table tennis game is region-free?
Don Jose @ May 24th 2006 7:03AM
To all those who bagged on Ameen (and his pathetic, fanboyish, and irrelevant-to-this-thread post), I lift my drink to you in toast. Games are forever. Trojan horses should be burned at the gate.
ADM56 @ May 24th 2006 7:30AM
""Budget" pricing in general is bad for the industry, and in the long run it's bad for the consumer. All you have to do is look how TakeTwo ruined the sports genre with their budget pricing. Their budget pricing caused EA to start everyone down "Exclusive" street. Budget pricing affects the people who make the games, who for the most part are underpaid." -dredub
EA ruined the sports genre by releasing roster updates every year. Don't blame it on Take 2.
Jay @ May 24th 2006 7:53AM
"doesn't need another version"?
It needs a Wii version. Frankly. I'm sick of pushing little buttons to do stuff. and I broke my table tennis paddle :(
I like how they call it a "budget" game when it costs the same as current gen games. way to go! Needless to say I won't be buying either a PS3 or 360 until the price of the games drops to £30. Thats what I pay for my PC games with unlimited resolutions.
J B Cougar @ May 24th 2006 8:41AM
Ironic. $39.99 is about what I'd expect to pay a company that puts advertisements into its game as well. You know, that's the point of ingame advertising, right? To lower the cost for the consumer? Anyway, cool game.
Clay @ May 24th 2006 8:47AM
Can we hook up Ameen with -150 stars for blabbing on about fanboy rants in the incorrect location? He's earned it.
LaughingTarget @ May 24th 2006 8:47AM
I don't exactly see how "budget" pricing is bad for the industry. Game development costs are nowhere near what Hollywood spends to make a movie.
The problem with games is the market is super-saturated. There are too many identical offerings. If a publisher spends $20 million on a game (higher end of costs) and can sell a million copies at $30 a piece, then that's a $10 million contribution margin. Then once that is gone, all they have to worry about is the $3 it costs to stamp the disk and case, leaving an even higher margin. There is a reason why publishers are willing to release $20 greatest hits titles, they can still make big bucks on them.
If publishers and developers focused on making fewer good games instead of hoardes of clones, then they could get away with charging far less than what they are now. Focusing on producing quality games, cutting back on the volume, and not only would consumers be happy, the publishers can make more money while charging less.
If Hollywood can recoup its investments on a $200 million bugdeted movie by charging $10 at the theater, then gaming companies can do the same by charging $20.
KilgoreTrout XL @ May 24th 2006 9:23AM
Sign me up. I'll take gameplay over peripheral "game face" features any day.
-GeoWars addict
Dork @ May 24th 2006 9:28AM
I cant believe people are going to buy Pong 2.0
dubz @ May 24th 2006 9:32AM
Got Table Tennis yesterday at about 3:00 pm, played for a "while", looked up at the clock and it was 8:30 pm. When time flies you know you're having fun, and I was definately having a blast. There is a lot of depth to the game, the multiplayer is awesome, and the characters are all very different and unique. It almost reminds me of a fighting game in regards to the vastly different characters. I wouldn't pick it up if you're not planning on playing on LIVE or with a friend however, because I can see the singleplayer getting old. That being said the game is well worth $40 for anyone that loves long rallies, and deep gameplay.
DrewMG @ May 24th 2006 9:34AM
The crazy thing is, I'm actually considering buying a 360 for this game. And that is essentially why I'm going to buy a Wii on DOR.
I'll hold off on the 360 for now, in the hopes that Rockstar eventually realizes the obvious - this game was born for Wii.
DG @ May 24th 2006 10:07AM
Big, powerful next-gen systems have been able to accurately reproduce ping pong. And sell it for $40. Tell me again why I should be impressed?
funkonaut @ May 24th 2006 10:31AM
Damn. Rockstar has quickly become the developer to beat. I just picked up The Warriors yesterday and LOVE it. Such a slick game.
Quang Nguyen @ May 24th 2006 11:19AM
"Big, powerful next-gen systems have been able to accurately reproduce ping pong. And sell it for $40. Tell me again why I should be impressed?"
Because it's fun?
hoos30 @ May 24th 2006 11:25AM
@44:
Didn't you know? Nothing is fun unless Nintendo says it is! ;-)
justin @ May 24th 2006 11:55AM
am i the only one that was looking for the seedy underbelly of this game to expose itself somehow?
josh @ May 24th 2006 12:10PM
"If Hollywood can recoup its investments on a $200 million bugdeted movie by charging $10 at the theater, then gaming companies can do the same by charging $20."
Actually, generally Hollywood doesn't. They recoup the $200 million movie by charging $10 at the theater, having product placement in the film, tie-ins at fast food resteraunts/chain stores, selling the foreign distribution rights, selling the HBO/Showtime rights, selling the cable rights, selling the broadcast TV rights, then selling the DVD for $20-25, as well as charging $6 on pay-per-view/on-demand/hotel rooms/etc.
Basically, there are many more avenues to make money from a movie than from a game.
Spartacus @ May 24th 2006 12:24PM
Why are people griping and moaning about a $40 price tag? It's $20 less than other 3rd party 360 games, quit whining! Furthermore, people who compare a video game disc to a DVD movie disc always forget one major factor in pricing: THE MOVIE HAS ALREADY MADE MILLIONS IN THE THEATRE. Games don't come out on a disc after they've already made a profit, the disc is the ONLY way the game becomes profitable. If Hollywood suddenly stopped making movie prints and DVD's were the only source of income they had, the prices would skyrocket right up to the level of a $60 360 video game. Use logic people. This is America, land of capitalism. The video game industry is not a charity, get used to it.
Vince @ May 24th 2006 12:26PM
This game sounds crisp, even better than I imagined it would.
When consoles get their arse's into gear and support two screens, as opposed to just the splitscreen or online multiplayer option, then simple games like this will really shine when playing with friends.
I can't believe these "next gen" machines aren't powerful enough to offer such a simple yet wonderful option.
So many games do splitscreen but they generally annoy me as your opponent can easily see what you're up to, not to mention how off putting it is.
Am I the only one with two (crap) TV's at my disposal, or is there just zero demand for this sort of thing?
Art Guy @ May 24th 2006 12:42PM
"If a publisher spends $20 million on a game (higher end of costs) and can sell a million copies at $30 a piece, then that's a $10 million contribution margin. Then once that is gone, all they have to worry about is the $3 it costs to stamp the disk and case, leaving an even higher margin. There is a reason why publishers are willing to release $20 greatest hits titles, they can still make big bucks on them."
If only it worked that way.
First of all, the material cost is always more than three dollars, with royalties to Nintendo/Sony/MicroSoft it can come to well over ten, depending on booklet size, inserts, number of colors used, etc. Plus you have to add in advertising and other costs.
Secondly, a small percentage of games sell a million copies. Even acclaimed big hits like Resident Evil 4 only sold 1.4 million units on the GameCube and even less on the PS2. Developers need to use the money made from the hit to subsidize those games that don't turn a profit, for every hit a developer has, they will have at least one or two games that don't fair so well. Heck many games never even make it to store shelves and die in production. I can't even count how many games I've seen die even when they were close to completion for one reason or another.
If your game cost more than $20 million, to make a profit you will need to sell a lot of units to cover the cost.
At $50 (-$7) you will need to sell at least 470k copies to break even.
At $30 (-$7) you will need to sell at least 870k copies to break even.
At $20 (-$7) you will need to sell at least 1.5 million copies to break even.
Hundreds of games were released in 2004, but only 50 sold more than 500k units, and of those, only 12 broke a million units. Something like only one in three games actually turns a profit. Making an good, innovative, and acclaimed game does not guarantee sales. Take Pychonauts for example, it never broke 100k units and the company hit hard times. If all games cost $20, every developer on the planet would have to severely limit the budget of every game they made or go out of business.
Even the "hit" Katamari Damacy only sold 300K units, a mere $6 million in total sales at $20 each. In comparison, the craptacular flop "Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector" movie managed to make over $15 million in movie ticket sales in just 9 weeks, which leads to...
"If Hollywood can recoup its investments on a $200 million bugdeted movie by charging $10 at the theater, then gaming companies can do the same by charging $20."
I've heard this argument before, and it is filled with holes.
1. Movie theaters have a much larger audience to draw from. You don't need to own any hardware before seeing a movie in the theater as you do with a video-game system. Videogames have a limited audience at any price.
2. Multiple revenue streams. Movies make money:
• In theaters, plus from from additional secondary runs
• DVD sales, in which the profits outstrip the theatrical run
• Almost every film released remains on sale for decades
• Pay per view
• Tv/Cable airings
• Licensing (t-shirts, posters, toys, etc.)
3. Games have a very limited revenue stream:
• 80-90% of all the profit from a game is made in the first 3 months of sale
• Most games are only on sale for a year or two, even best sellers
• Game do not have the shelf life of a movie
• Games over 7 years old are often only available in multipacks
• Games have an unavoidable fixed cost licensing fee