The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gamecube has a better chance of beating sony. "Why" you may ask. But the answers are simple:
Companies like Rare are going to stick to making Gamecube games and other companies will move to Gamecube
The games have unbeatable graphics, the best detail and the best playability meaning the best all round games
Sony games like Crash bandicoot will now belong to Nintendo
The Pokemon craze will continue because of the 3 dimentional versions of red, blue, yellow, Gold and silver
The console is going to be at an affordable price meaning more people will be able to get it
Pirate copies will be almost impossible because of the speical DVD's it will use
The controllers are top notch and the Wireless controllers make tangled up wires seem like last century
On top of all this, Rumors that Nintendo are going to buy sega means that Nintendo will own 2 3rds of the gaming market. Will microsoft and there console be a number one hit?
Companies like Rare are going to stick to making Gamecube games and other companies will move to Gamecube
The games have unbeatable graphics, the best detail and the best playability meaning the best all round games
Sony games like Crash bandicoot will now belong to Nintendo
The Pokemon craze will continue because of the 3 dimentional versions of red, blue, yellow, Gold and silver
The console is going to be at an affordable price meaning more people will be able to get it
Pirate copies will be almost impossible because of the speical DVD's it will use
The controllers are top notch and the Wireless controllers make tangled up wires seem like last century
On top of all this, Rumors that Nintendo are going to buy sega means that Nintendo will own 2 3rds of the gaming market. Will microsoft and there console be a number one hit?
Page:
OK, that's annoying - my message was actually a reply to elitesniper, but his message has been pushed off the bottom of the board so mine makes no sense now (or did it ever?). Basically, he said that Sega were scrapping the DC in 2 years' time and he believed the order of commercial success in the forthcoming console war would be as follows:
1. Sony
2. Nintendo
3. Microsoft
I'm happy I cleared that up... phew.
1. Sony
2. Nintendo
3. Microsoft
I'm happy I cleared that up... phew.
get a nickname!
I don't know if this is an old message I'm replying to, but I think what you read was just a rumour and not a statement of fact, because I've read numerous flat-out denials from Sega representatives of exactly these kinds of rumours.
Truth is, Dreamcast is doing very well at the moment, and its sales have gone through the roof recently in both the US and the UK (especially in the US, where sales actually increased by 150% as a direct result of the PS2 launch fiasco). Even in Japan the sales are picking up: The number one selling game last weekend was a Dreamcast title, and several number ones have already graced the UK and US and are likely to do so in the future too.
I don't think Sony will rule the roost, but that's just my personal opinion. Having observed their launch fiasco, it seems less and less likely that the PS2 will experience anywhere near the level of commercial succes Sony were aspiring to. The way I see it, third party developers have little reason to develop for PS2 at the moment because:
1. It is difficult to program for, and therefore expensive to program for.
2. PS2 owners don't on average buy as many games as Dreamcast owners, partly because the console broke the bank in the first place. On launch day, Dreamcast sold 3 games per console in the UK, the PS2 less than 1 per console. Midnight Club on PS2 has so far sold only 18 copies nationwide (no, I'm not making this up)!
3. There are currently more Dreamcast owners in the UK than PS2 owners, and once potential PS2 buyers realise that the console isn't what it's cracked up to be, they'll probably jump ship.
Sorry for sounding anti-PS2, I just don't like it much, all the more so for Sony's relentless hype-machine. And have you ever wondered why Codemasters decided to scrap their DC rally game when it was 99% finished and guaranteed to fly off the shelves due to lack of any competition? I wonder if Sony paid them off? Hmm. Maybe I'll get a PS2 next year just for MGS2 if the price goes down significantly, but otherwise I'm sticking with my trusty Dreamcast until something else is truly worthy of my cash.
OK, now that I've talked way too much and probably upset/angered/cracked up 80% of you, here's what I predict will happen in the so-called "console war":
1. Microsoft (Money = success)
2. Sony (Same as above)
3. Sega sit here, eventually to be replaced by Nintendo, but not straight away.
Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but please, no flames :)
Truth is, Dreamcast is doing very well at the moment, and its sales have gone through the roof recently in both the US and the UK (especially in the US, where sales actually increased by 150% as a direct result of the PS2 launch fiasco). Even in Japan the sales are picking up: The number one selling game last weekend was a Dreamcast title, and several number ones have already graced the UK and US and are likely to do so in the future too.
I don't think Sony will rule the roost, but that's just my personal opinion. Having observed their launch fiasco, it seems less and less likely that the PS2 will experience anywhere near the level of commercial succes Sony were aspiring to. The way I see it, third party developers have little reason to develop for PS2 at the moment because:
1. It is difficult to program for, and therefore expensive to program for.
2. PS2 owners don't on average buy as many games as Dreamcast owners, partly because the console broke the bank in the first place. On launch day, Dreamcast sold 3 games per console in the UK, the PS2 less than 1 per console. Midnight Club on PS2 has so far sold only 18 copies nationwide (no, I'm not making this up)!
3. There are currently more Dreamcast owners in the UK than PS2 owners, and once potential PS2 buyers realise that the console isn't what it's cracked up to be, they'll probably jump ship.
Sorry for sounding anti-PS2, I just don't like it much, all the more so for Sony's relentless hype-machine. And have you ever wondered why Codemasters decided to scrap their DC rally game when it was 99% finished and guaranteed to fly off the shelves due to lack of any competition? I wonder if Sony paid them off? Hmm. Maybe I'll get a PS2 next year just for MGS2 if the price goes down significantly, but otherwise I'm sticking with my trusty Dreamcast until something else is truly worthy of my cash.
OK, now that I've talked way too much and probably upset/angered/cracked up 80% of you, here's what I predict will happen in the so-called "console war":
1. Microsoft (Money = success)
2. Sony (Same as above)
3. Sega sit here, eventually to be replaced by Nintendo, but not straight away.
Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but please, no flames :)
There is also the fact that a few developers have pulled out of PS2 development to concentrate on the X-Box, the industry support for MS's new console is considerable compared to the Gamecube. The PS2 has the disadvantage of been very difficult (but not impossible) for programmers to get to grips with, from what I've heard the X-Box's architecture does not present them with the same problems.
As usual, it's timing. Sega always release first, then Sony buy one, look inside and release a better version 2nd, then Nintendo play catchup and release 3rd. It has always been this way until the N64 came out. A shame, they should have waited until they had 128-bit technology ready. But now we have the new kid on the block, X-Box, coming out just after the Gamecube, this could seriously affect Nintendo's sales. Sony have had, and will have, plenty of time meanwhile to build up a good base of existing and future customers over the coming months. Nintendo will not be able to do this. I think they are approaching a chasm and need to build up some speed to leap it, with X-Box running along side them, grinning confidently.
As usual, it's timing. Sega always release first, then Sony buy one, look inside and release a better version 2nd, then Nintendo play catchup and release 3rd. It has always been this way until the N64 came out. A shame, they should have waited until they had 128-bit technology ready. But now we have the new kid on the block, X-Box, coming out just after the Gamecube, this could seriously affect Nintendo's sales. Sony have had, and will have, plenty of time meanwhile to build up a good base of existing and future customers over the coming months. Nintendo will not be able to do this. I think they are approaching a chasm and need to build up some speed to leap it, with X-Box running along side them, grinning confidently.
You say that the gamecube will dominate the market eh? i disagree totally. Just look at the sales of the ps2 in the uk so far. I knew before both came out that the one that was released first was going to be more succesfull because people dont want to wait for the gamecube when the playstation has just been released feauturing a DVD part. No matter what anyone says, The n64 was a failure. Great games were released but not enough of them. at the beginning of the n64 games were being churned out at about 1.8 a month!! compared to the playstations 9+ a month. This might affect peoples views and may feel that if they wait they will be dissapointed. For the last couple of years and am still not satisfied. i still look at the playstation and wonder why i didnt buy that instead. Will it be the same for the gamecube?? i think so that is why my full support is with the ps2. No matter what you say u can still copy DVD's and pirates will find a way. Playstation 2 has obviously got the brittish public by a firm grasp as most places are now selling out fast. Will it be the same for the gamecube?? i think not my friend.
> And onother thing
Next time you quote me, can you correct the spelling for me.
It's obviously Monday. :-)
Next time you quote me, can you correct the spelling for me.
It's obviously Monday. :-)
> And onother thing, it'll only really be the first games that are
> difficult to program, as the developers will build their own tools
> to use time and again to make their job easier.
Exactly. I posted something very similar a while ago, but it fell on deaf ears (or should that be blind eyes in the case of a forum such as this?)
> difficult to program, as the developers will build their own tools
> to use time and again to make their job easier.
Exactly. I posted something very similar a while ago, but it fell on deaf ears (or should that be blind eyes in the case of a forum such as this?)
> A: "It is a bit awkward, but the key to it is to adapt your
> game to the PS2's architecture. The people doing most of the
> complaining are probably trying to quickly port their PC game and
> realising that the PS2 requires things to be done in a
> fundamentally different way. If you're not prepared to change the
> way you do things, you'll end up with a poor frame rate, which
> undermines the quality of the whole game. It's as simple as that.
> For us, it hasn't been a problem because we started with nothing,
> and built the game with the PS2 in mind."
Therefore Playstation2 owners will probably find that the best games are those that come to the system first, rather than those that are ported to it from other platforms. Also PS2 versions of games will be different to the versions on other platforms, if the developers are going to work to the strengths of the system.
And onother thing, it'll only really be the first games that are difficult to program, as the developers will build their own tools to use time and again to make their job easier.
> game to the PS2's architecture. The people doing most of the
> complaining are probably trying to quickly port their PC game and
> realising that the PS2 requires things to be done in a
> fundamentally different way. If you're not prepared to change the
> way you do things, you'll end up with a poor frame rate, which
> undermines the quality of the whole game. It's as simple as that.
> For us, it hasn't been a problem because we started with nothing,
> and built the game with the PS2 in mind."
Therefore Playstation2 owners will probably find that the best games are those that come to the system first, rather than those that are ported to it from other platforms. Also PS2 versions of games will be different to the versions on other platforms, if the developers are going to work to the strengths of the system.
And onother thing, it'll only really be the first games that are difficult to program, as the developers will build their own tools to use time and again to make their job easier.
Dan_uk wrote:
> Ant, it's not simply getting used to the system. It just
> apparently makes games more complicated to make.
This seems to be more of a myth by the day.
Interview with Free Radical Design (the ex-Rare coders producing TimeSplitters for PS2). Full article at http://www.dailyradar.co.uk/features/game_feature_page_274_1.html
Q: "How have FRD coped with the PlayStation 2's architecture, often opined as being 'a bit bloody awkward'? Are such reports exaggerated?"
A: "It is a bit awkward, but the key to it is to adapt your game to the PS2's architecture. The people doing most of the complaining are probably trying to quickly port their PC game and realising that the PS2 requires things to be done in a fundamentally different way. If you're not prepared to change the way you do things, you'll end up with a poor frame rate, which undermines the quality of the whole game. It's as simple as that. For us, it hasn't been a problem because we started with nothing, and built the game with the PS2 in mind."
> Ant, it's not simply getting used to the system. It just
> apparently makes games more complicated to make.
This seems to be more of a myth by the day.
Interview with Free Radical Design (the ex-Rare coders producing TimeSplitters for PS2). Full article at http://www.dailyradar.co.uk/features/game_feature_page_274_1.html
Q: "How have FRD coped with the PlayStation 2's architecture, often opined as being 'a bit bloody awkward'? Are such reports exaggerated?"
A: "It is a bit awkward, but the key to it is to adapt your game to the PS2's architecture. The people doing most of the complaining are probably trying to quickly port their PC game and realising that the PS2 requires things to be done in a fundamentally different way. If you're not prepared to change the way you do things, you'll end up with a poor frame rate, which undermines the quality of the whole game. It's as simple as that. For us, it hasn't been a problem because we started with nothing, and built the game with the PS2 in mind."
Page: