Viewing Thread:
"Next generation timing"

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!!!!!

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:

> My outlook isn't helped, I'm sure, by the fact that Microsoft
> paid people to sit in a special section at their 360 launch
> gathering and cheer wildly whenever something remotely interesting
> was mentioned about the machine.

Rather that than fake FMV footage of games, claiming them to be running on a PS3 when they're doing nothing of the sort.

You're right though, the fake crowd was incredibly cheesy. Add to that the glare coming off J Allards bald head and you've got grounds to put anyone off 360.

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.

Moto GP was utterly unplayable, for two reasons:

Firstly, several players had quite obviously bodged a dial-up connection, because bikes kept disappearing and re-appearing 'off the track' where the connection couldn't keep up.

Secondly, whoever was hosting the game simply dropped off if they weren't doing too well in the race, kicking everyone back to the lobby (or whatever it's called) to find another race.

Not a criticism of Live specifically, but more of online gaming in general.

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.

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 but it was still more fun than playing against strangers on LIVE.

That's where having more than one Xbox comes in handy.

Hedfix is right about LIVE being great because of ease of use and reliability etc. but online gaming in general just doesnt do it for me. I'd rather get my mates round and use a milti-tap. It just seems more fun to me.

Based on what games exactly?

Well, firstly I have at least tried Live, as already mentioned!

Secondly, I'm not knocking anything - just stating my own opinion!

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> As I understand it, there are no fees at all for Sony's method. Most
> publlishers run their own servers and don't charge. Of course, not
> playing online, I couldn't swear to that - but that's how I've
> understood it to work.

Except publishers can charge for downloadable content and they generally charge for MMORPGs if they're planning to add more to them over-time. If MS get a few MMORPGs started but don't charge extra because of the standard live subscription that's going to put Sony's stance in the shade.

Also the level of quality is meant to be much higher on Live than on the PS2 mainly because there's a fixed framework for every online game meaning that communicating between games is easy and joining friends on other games becomes childsplay. If you're into to online gaming that's definitely the best setup to go for - don't knock it until you've tried it.

gerrid wrote:
> one fee for playing all online games (instead of having
> to shell out seperate subscriptions to each publisher at their whim)

As I understand it, there are no fees at all for Sony's method. Most publlishers run their own servers and don't charge. Of course, not playing online, I couldn't swear to that - but that's how I've understood it to work.


> is so much simpler and more enjoyable than Sony's "let the
> publisher deal with it" approach, which leaves you with
> subscriptions to a myriad of different services companies.

It may be simpler, but PC games have used the same method as Sony for ages, and it's never been detrimental there.