The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Just skipping round the internet - found X-Box 360 on that place we can't mention here because they usually have better prices. It says its released in November of this year. Is that true? Was X-Box 1 that much of a failure? Didn't Dreamcast do a similar thing in between generations where few people ready for a new console?
Why so soon? The PS2 has plenty of life left in it and will happily last until PS3. Despite being released later, X-Box seems unable to last - is this not a bad sign for the 360? 4.5 years doesn't seem enough time to get ready for the next jump. It might be fine to release a new version of windows every ten minutes, but I'm not convinced when it comes to consoles.
This isn't supposed to provoke a console war about which is better, since I guess we won't really know for sure that PS3 is better for a little while yet :D
All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the timing. I'll happily sit here and enjoy the many games on PS2 I really want to finish but haven't had time for yet and gently prepare for the proper next generation.
P.S. PS3 iz GONA B WEL BETR!!11111!!!!!
Why so soon? The PS2 has plenty of life left in it and will happily last until PS3. Despite being released later, X-Box seems unable to last - is this not a bad sign for the 360? 4.5 years doesn't seem enough time to get ready for the next jump. It might be fine to release a new version of windows every ten minutes, but I'm not convinced when it comes to consoles.
This isn't supposed to provoke a console war about which is better, since I guess we won't really know for sure that PS3 is better for a little while yet :D
All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the timing. I'll happily sit here and enjoy the many games on PS2 I really want to finish but haven't had time for yet and gently prepare for the proper next generation.
P.S. PS3 iz GONA B WEL BETR!!11111!!!!!
Page:
100,000 DS's sold in Japan alone this month (edit - not week) suggests otherwise, but granted, they do seem to be falling behind in the home console battle. Whilst before they could rely soley on the sale of handheld-related products, they can't be sure to be so successful now that Sony have joined the market. The DS has outsold the PSP thusfar, but Nintendo's handheld market share has been sliced almost in half, so yes, if the Revolution is a failure, it could be the beginning of the end.
I don't know, though. If Revolution is released as cheaply as is being touted, and has some great new features not yet revealed, it could easily have the success to carry Nintendo into the next generation in another 5 years time.
I don't know, though. If Revolution is released as cheaply as is being touted, and has some great new features not yet revealed, it could easily have the success to carry Nintendo into the next generation in another 5 years time.
Nintendo need to be very careful, as they're playing a dangerous game, and I think they're in danger of being forgotten by all but their loyal fans.
Mozzy wrote:
> It's funny how the Revolution hasn't even been mentioned. :D
>
> Poor poor Nintendo.
Yeah, poor poor Nintendo, they're only making big profits right now.
What a shame, eh?
> It's funny how the Revolution hasn't even been mentioned. :D
>
> Poor poor Nintendo.
Yeah, poor poor Nintendo, they're only making big profits right now.
What a shame, eh?
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> It may be simpler, but PC games have used the same method as Sony for
> ages, and it's never been detrimental there.
Well actually that's not entirely true. Most serious online players (I mean people who play more than one game online) DO use a program, like Gamespy or Xfire, to centralise all their online games, have a place where they can meet friends and see what they're playing. It's the basis for LIVE, and Nintendo are doing the same thing with the DS (using Gamespy).
Talk to anyone who plays online games regularly and ask them how much easier their life has become thanks to Xfire. Without that sort of framework online play becomes a horrible trial and error search for servers over the phone, or using a separate instant message client, and it's not worth the hassle. Without the friendslist and simplicity of LIVE, I don't think the Xbox online service would have taken off anywhere near as well as it has.
> It may be simpler, but PC games have used the same method as Sony for
> ages, and it's never been detrimental there.
Well actually that's not entirely true. Most serious online players (I mean people who play more than one game online) DO use a program, like Gamespy or Xfire, to centralise all their online games, have a place where they can meet friends and see what they're playing. It's the basis for LIVE, and Nintendo are doing the same thing with the DS (using Gamespy).
Talk to anyone who plays online games regularly and ask them how much easier their life has become thanks to Xfire. Without that sort of framework online play becomes a horrible trial and error search for servers over the phone, or using a separate instant message client, and it's not worth the hassle. Without the friendslist and simplicity of LIVE, I don't think the Xbox online service would have taken off anywhere near as well as it has.
Oh and Tilt, since you're on the forums: you up for that Doom 3 co-op then?
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Based on what games exactly?
>
> 3 or 4, but the only one I can recall is Moto GP - it was about 2
> years ago.
Fair enough.
I started with Rainbow Six 3 but I'd certainly agree the earlier live titles were quite ropey. Mech Assault is complete ass, Unreal really needed a lot more detail to make it compelling and RTCW is also a lightweight offering although still very good fun.
For me it all kicked off with RS3 and then we got the Splinter Cell's and Halo 2 etc so Live improved greatly.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Based on what games exactly?
>
> 3 or 4, but the only one I can recall is Moto GP - it was about 2
> years ago.
Fair enough.
I started with Rainbow Six 3 but I'd certainly agree the earlier live titles were quite ropey. Mech Assault is complete ass, Unreal really needed a lot more detail to make it compelling and RTCW is also a lightweight offering although still very good fun.
For me it all kicked off with RS3 and then we got the Splinter Cell's and Halo 2 etc so Live improved greatly.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Rather that than fake FMV footage of games, claiming them to be
> running on a PS3 when they're doing nothing of the sort.
I've discussed this repeatedly elsewhere. Go find my other posts, cos I can't be arsed typing it all again! :-)
> Rather that than fake FMV footage of games, claiming them to be
> running on a PS3 when they're doing nothing of the sort.
I've discussed this repeatedly elsewhere. Go find my other posts, cos I can't be arsed typing it all again! :-)
Geffdof wrote:
> I remember the good old days of deathmatches on Doom on the PS1. Two
> TV's, two consoles and a link cable. It was a relatively poor
> version of the classic game
Yeah, been theredone that: was excellent at the time.
but it was still more fun than playing
> against strangers on LIVE.
That's why they give you a friendslist capable of holding 101 names.
> I remember the good old days of deathmatches on Doom on the PS1. Two
> TV's, two consoles and a link cable. It was a relatively poor
> version of the classic game
Yeah, been theredone that: was excellent at the time.
but it was still more fun than playing
> against strangers on LIVE.
That's why they give you a friendslist capable of holding 101 names.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Do you have a supply of friends on the tap 24/7?
>
> I've reached an age where most my friends have no real interest in
> gaming and certainly not multiplayer gaming. Xbox Live is perfect for
> the times when I get bored of shooting facelss AI bots.
Ha, I wish. I agree that LIVE can be good and is better than playing against bots. I dont play games as much as I did in the past tbh. My friends and I treat it as a social event. Now and then we'll get a few beers and sit round playing games. Obviously it cant be done every day (let alone once a week), but it still think its more satisfying to play agains "real people" rather than those on LIVE, but that jsut my personal opinion, and I can understand why many people like LIVE.
> Do you have a supply of friends on the tap 24/7?
>
> I've reached an age where most my friends have no real interest in
> gaming and certainly not multiplayer gaming. Xbox Live is perfect for
> the times when I get bored of shooting facelss AI bots.
Ha, I wish. I agree that LIVE can be good and is better than playing against bots. I dont play games as much as I did in the past tbh. My friends and I treat it as a social event. Now and then we'll get a few beers and sit round playing games. Obviously it cant be done every day (let alone once a week), but it still think its more satisfying to play agains "real people" rather than those on LIVE, but that jsut my personal opinion, and I can understand why many people like LIVE.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Not a criticism of Live specifically, but more of online gaming in
> general.
Find some decent people who play reguarly though and you'll have no problems like this. That's the beauty of the Xbox Live friends list and community features.
Microsft constantly hype them up, so much so that it gets a bit boring after a while. But all dues to them, they really have managed to put together an excellent system that's only going to get even better with Xbox 360.
> Not a criticism of Live specifically, but more of online gaming in
> general.
Find some decent people who play reguarly though and you'll have no problems like this. That's the beauty of the Xbox Live friends list and community features.
Microsft constantly hype them up, so much so that it gets a bit boring after a while. But all dues to them, they really have managed to put together an excellent system that's only going to get even better with Xbox 360.
Page: