The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you probably all know by now, MS has said that they expect to launch Xbox 2 in 2005. The question I ask is: What's the point?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
Page:
As you probably all know by now, MS has said that they expect to launch Xbox 2 in 2005. The question I ask is: What's the point?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
I totally agree I think 2005 is far too early for both Nintendo and Microsoft to be releasing sequels. 4 years for over £600 + on each console including accessories and games?! I am beginning to wonder if they are only in it for the money and with Sony's run away success this time around I think both Nintendo and Microsoft should stick with the battle and continue to release great games. From my point of view I see it as Microsoft and Nintendo throwing in the towel and admitting defeat and from 2 giant companies I thought I would never see such a thing!
2005? Dates could slip but I would hope for something around 2007.
2005? Dates could slip but I would hope for something around 2007.
I would hope for 2007 too, from Sony as well. Sony are scheduled to announce the specs for their PS3 next month between 4th-6th month, so maybe by then we'll have a better idea of launch time for it. I figure if they're going to be using 'The Cell' as the CPU then 2006 would be a minimum date, seeing as it's still at the R&D stages.
Average lifespan for consoles in the past has been 5-7 years. With all 3 consoles receiving next gen replacements by 2005, this is a considerably shorter lifespan for the existing units.
However, their architecture may be such that developers will be able to get to grips with the new technology and squeeze the most out of it straight away, instead of the usual 12-24 months of experimentation and copying what the last guy did as we have had in the past.
The only reason XBox and Nintendo would need to launch sooner than the PS3 is userbase, it's the only real hope (barring AAA titles being launched one after the other over the next 3 years) that they could hope to have any impact at all on Sony's 120 million expected users by the year 2005. So whilst it may upset a few existing owners, in terms of business sense it seems an excellent tactic to get your next gen console out before the competition. (Unless you're SEGA, they always used to release first, and then everyone waited to see what Sony and Nintendo would bring out and whether it would be more powerful).
Average lifespan for consoles in the past has been 5-7 years. With all 3 consoles receiving next gen replacements by 2005, this is a considerably shorter lifespan for the existing units.
However, their architecture may be such that developers will be able to get to grips with the new technology and squeeze the most out of it straight away, instead of the usual 12-24 months of experimentation and copying what the last guy did as we have had in the past.
The only reason XBox and Nintendo would need to launch sooner than the PS3 is userbase, it's the only real hope (barring AAA titles being launched one after the other over the next 3 years) that they could hope to have any impact at all on Sony's 120 million expected users by the year 2005. So whilst it may upset a few existing owners, in terms of business sense it seems an excellent tactic to get your next gen console out before the competition. (Unless you're SEGA, they always used to release first, and then everyone waited to see what Sony and Nintendo would bring out and whether it would be more powerful).
The main target audience of the Xbox is presumably PC hacks. Just look at newsgroups all over the place to see what the geeky people are doing with their Xbox's, many people have bought them to unlock the internal stuff and have a cheap Linux or Windows PC.
Fair enough, and good for them, but as the Xbox is based on PC architecture, and very out of date PC architecture at that, 4 years down the line the speeds of PCs will be extraordinary compared to the front line consoles.
Will games such as Doom 3 run on an Xbox? Not on your life.
Looking at the current situation, Nvidia have just release their FX chipset, or NV30. The Xbox contains a NV2A, a modified NV20, a basic Geforce 3 to anyone who knows about video cards.
The Xbox also only has a modified PIII Coppermine with half of its L2 cache turned off. So, the Xbox was out of date inb terms of hardware, long before launch, and Intel are stuck charging quite a lot for the console because of licensing deals pre-arranged with Nvidia and Intel.
They want to break this, and they want to be able to reduce the cost of their hardware.
A new console is hteir only option.
As for Sony, they'll release a new console once games sales on their current platform begin to decline. At the moment, Sony holkd roughly 40% of worldwide software sales on the PSOne and PS2, so we're in no danger of losing the PS in the UK until about 2006, 6 years really isn;t such a short time for anything in the hardware market!!
Fair enough, and good for them, but as the Xbox is based on PC architecture, and very out of date PC architecture at that, 4 years down the line the speeds of PCs will be extraordinary compared to the front line consoles.
Will games such as Doom 3 run on an Xbox? Not on your life.
Looking at the current situation, Nvidia have just release their FX chipset, or NV30. The Xbox contains a NV2A, a modified NV20, a basic Geforce 3 to anyone who knows about video cards.
The Xbox also only has a modified PIII Coppermine with half of its L2 cache turned off. So, the Xbox was out of date inb terms of hardware, long before launch, and Intel are stuck charging quite a lot for the console because of licensing deals pre-arranged with Nvidia and Intel.
They want to break this, and they want to be able to reduce the cost of their hardware.
A new console is hteir only option.
As for Sony, they'll release a new console once games sales on their current platform begin to decline. At the moment, Sony holkd roughly 40% of worldwide software sales on the PSOne and PS2, so we're in no danger of losing the PS in the UK until about 2006, 6 years really isn;t such a short time for anything in the hardware market!!
I said this ages ago and you all had a go at me.
And now Nintendo reduced the GC's lifespan from 7 years to 4.
Thanks a bunch.
And now Nintendo reduced the GC's lifespan from 7 years to 4.
Thanks a bunch.
Oh
I blame capitalism
Nintendo had the right idea saying everyone was too wrapped up in the hardware, but by the time developers start to release the full potential they're dumped with a completely different one instead.
I blame capitalism
Nintendo had the right idea saying everyone was too wrapped up in the hardware, but by the time developers start to release the full potential they're dumped with a completely different one instead.
Halo 2, DOA Vollyball, DOA3, Splinter Cell and PDO have some of the best graphics I've ever seen. They all full utalise Xbox hardware, even if it is only a Geforce 3. So there are bigger and better cards out at the mement, but A) they (and the PC)will cost you an arm and a leg
and B) only Doom 3 and the like fully use them.
Fact is Halo 2 looks pretty dam special and if Xbox can do that then Doom 3 is possible I think.
In relation to the Xbox 2 argument- I'd say Sony need to get a new console out before MS, simply for the fact that PS2 games look outdated already. Also I think PS2 is badly designed(too many add ons), and mark my words that most of the features you see in Xbox you will find in PS3(ie music ripping, hard drive, broadband only).
The reason MS want to get another console war in 2005 is because they are confident they can win it. PS2 had a huge head start and was hyped beyond belief so sony had "won" the battle of the living room before Xbox and GC were even released.
Next time, MS have a chance of being of market leader. And they want it badly. Hense a new console as soon as possible.
and B) only Doom 3 and the like fully use them.
Fact is Halo 2 looks pretty dam special and if Xbox can do that then Doom 3 is possible I think.
In relation to the Xbox 2 argument- I'd say Sony need to get a new console out before MS, simply for the fact that PS2 games look outdated already. Also I think PS2 is badly designed(too many add ons), and mark my words that most of the features you see in Xbox you will find in PS3(ie music ripping, hard drive, broadband only).
The reason MS want to get another console war in 2005 is because they are confident they can win it. PS2 had a huge head start and was hyped beyond belief so sony had "won" the battle of the living room before Xbox and GC were even released.
Next time, MS have a chance of being of market leader. And they want it badly. Hense a new console as soon as possible.
MS will eventualy be market leader for certain.
Money counts.
I agree - I thought 2005 was a bit of a short distance for the GCs successor, andfor the XBox 2 as well.
Most of the best games come late in the life of a console, when everything has been opened up and utilised fully.
Money counts.
I agree - I thought 2005 was a bit of a short distance for the GCs successor, andfor the XBox 2 as well.
Most of the best games come late in the life of a console, when everything has been opened up and utilised fully.
Cyclone wrote:
> MS will eventualy be market leader for certain.
Doubt it.
> Money counts.
And it's something all three companies have.
On the topic in hand, I'd like the three giants to wait a while first - games are getting brilliant and originality is still very much alive. I'd much prefer to have the manufacturers working on some AAA titles rather than new hardware. Hopefully though, once the next generation comes around, things will slow down a bit.
> MS will eventualy be market leader for certain.
Doubt it.
> Money counts.
And it's something all three companies have.
On the topic in hand, I'd like the three giants to wait a while first - games are getting brilliant and originality is still very much alive. I'd much prefer to have the manufacturers working on some AAA titles rather than new hardware. Hopefully though, once the next generation comes around, things will slow down a bit.
No.Not really,well not yet anyway
Page: