The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why was the Playstation so successful?
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Page:
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Wookie, good points, but there is one that I must hold you to...
>
> Middleware is in NO WAY cheaper than developing a game
> from scratch.
Okay, having done some digging, I'll grant you that may be the case with some companies.
From the Renderware website, via a .pdf document...
"Of course, another reason for RenderWare’s ubiquity is Criterion’s aggressive pricing. Where other engines come in fractions of millions, usually starting at a quarter of, RenderWare was launched at $1,000 a year, per seat.
"The pricing strategy of Criterion fits really well with the expectations of the developers and publishers: price per platform per year with no royalties with a very flexible price/package according to the number of platforms,"” confirms Cryo’s Galet.
While middleware is seems a good solution in many situations, it’s important to remember that too much of a good thing is be a bad thing. Take Neversoft’s opting for RenderWare. Neversoft originally created an excellent PlayStation engine which ended up being used in Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 1 and 2, Spider-Man and Matt Hoffman Pro BMX. So while switch to RenderWare may be a good short-term solution for Activision to get Tony Hawk’s 3 to PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube, it may prove to be more expensive and less flexible over time and multiple games."
So... it *may* be more expensive, but not always. I suppose it would probably turn out more expensive for smaller companies who have smaller budgets for game development. But with those prices, I don't see it being a major problem for the bigger companies - Sony, EA etc.
A team of 50 programmers working for, say, 18 months on a game - that's $75,000. Okay, that's only license fees - you have salaries and other overheads, but when you think that major titles from the big companies often have budgets of a few million, it's not too bad. Then consider what I said earlier - that if only 1% of PS2 owners buy a game, they could make £8 million. And that's just ONE game.
So... I dunno. The profit is obviously good, because everyone wants a piece of the industry!
> Wookie, good points, but there is one that I must hold you to...
>
> Middleware is in NO WAY cheaper than developing a game
> from scratch.
Okay, having done some digging, I'll grant you that may be the case with some companies.
From the Renderware website, via a .pdf document...
"Of course, another reason for RenderWare’s ubiquity is Criterion’s aggressive pricing. Where other engines come in fractions of millions, usually starting at a quarter of, RenderWare was launched at $1,000 a year, per seat.
"The pricing strategy of Criterion fits really well with the expectations of the developers and publishers: price per platform per year with no royalties with a very flexible price/package according to the number of platforms,"” confirms Cryo’s Galet.
While middleware is seems a good solution in many situations, it’s important to remember that too much of a good thing is be a bad thing. Take Neversoft’s opting for RenderWare. Neversoft originally created an excellent PlayStation engine which ended up being used in Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 1 and 2, Spider-Man and Matt Hoffman Pro BMX. So while switch to RenderWare may be a good short-term solution for Activision to get Tony Hawk’s 3 to PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube, it may prove to be more expensive and less flexible over time and multiple games."
So... it *may* be more expensive, but not always. I suppose it would probably turn out more expensive for smaller companies who have smaller budgets for game development. But with those prices, I don't see it being a major problem for the bigger companies - Sony, EA etc.
A team of 50 programmers working for, say, 18 months on a game - that's $75,000. Okay, that's only license fees - you have salaries and other overheads, but when you think that major titles from the big companies often have budgets of a few million, it's not too bad. Then consider what I said earlier - that if only 1% of PS2 owners buy a game, they could make £8 million. And that's just ONE game.
So... I dunno. The profit is obviously good, because everyone wants a piece of the industry!
oh, but Wookie, why do Nintendo have the biggest casual gamers following? Just wondering why you thought that?
And yes, Ninty and Rare have made bad games, but we don't speak of them...
;-)
And yes, Ninty and Rare have made bad games, but we don't speak of them...
;-)
heh, I agree Wookie, I got pretty sick of console wars topics, but this one is actually quite good. Just shows what you can do when you put your mind to it!
;-)
;-)
Sibs wrote:
> Geez, I seem good at stirring up controversy here.
;-)
Ordinarily I hate console wars topics with a vengeance, but usually they are just slanging matches. This, however, is *good* controversy!
Casual gamers... yes, in the context you've given I will accept that they do exist. My point of view, though, is taken from these forums - where the term "casual gamer" strikes me as (more often than not) being used and intended as an insult; as if "casual gamers" have ruined the console market, all own PlayStations without exception, and have no business having any interest in games. Which is of course rubbish.
In fact, taking your definition of "casual gamers", any 'outsider' viewing these forums would no doubt agree that Nintendo probably have the largest following of casual gamers on the planet. I've never owned a Sega or Nintendo console (apart from a Gameboy), but I absolutely do not believe that neither Nintendo, Rare or Sega have ever made an average or poor game - which is what most of the fans posting on these forums would have you believe.
> and PS2 is the most 'trendy' console out there, so
> casual gamers are most likely to own a PS2
> over another next gen console.
Hmmm... I don't *entirely* agree, but I'll try and explain why...
Although I've been playing videogames for 22 years now (and crikey do my thumbs ache... :-D), when I got my PlayStation 1995, I was what you would describe as a 'casual' gamer as far as consoles were concerned, as I'd never owned a console. (Well, I had, but it was some old 80's thing so I don't count that.)
I of course knew of Nintendo and Sega, and as you may have read in previous posts of mine, I originally went out to buy a Saturn with Panzer Dragoon. But I saw Wipeout running on a PlayStation, and bought that instead. Obviously I knew about Sony, but I didn't know about their console.
So, my point is - casual gamers won't necessarily buy the most popular machine, but may easily be swayed by what they see running on the machines in-store. If that is the case, then all the machines are (in my opintion) quite capable of holding their own and seducing equal numbers of new punters.
> like currently I think I read on ign.com
> about Naughty Dog, said something like they didn't care how much easier it would
> be to make games on another console, or how many extra features, etc. it had,
> they were going to work on PS2 cos that's where the most money is...
Well, it is a shame, but it's also good business sense. It also proves the point I made to Sonic that profit-margins are high on PS2, despite the 'difficulties' of development.
> I think developers should make games for
> the console they feel they can make games for best.
I think they should make games for all platforms available, as long as it is financially viable to do so, making the best game they can with regard to the original design spec. After all, if they can convert WRC2001 to the PS1... :-)
> Isn't that what seperates good games designers from
> great games designers?
In an ideal world. But we already know that the developers aren't like that - there are far too many sub-standard games available, with more on the way - on all platforms!
> Geez, I seem good at stirring up controversy here.
;-)
Ordinarily I hate console wars topics with a vengeance, but usually they are just slanging matches. This, however, is *good* controversy!
Casual gamers... yes, in the context you've given I will accept that they do exist. My point of view, though, is taken from these forums - where the term "casual gamer" strikes me as (more often than not) being used and intended as an insult; as if "casual gamers" have ruined the console market, all own PlayStations without exception, and have no business having any interest in games. Which is of course rubbish.
In fact, taking your definition of "casual gamers", any 'outsider' viewing these forums would no doubt agree that Nintendo probably have the largest following of casual gamers on the planet. I've never owned a Sega or Nintendo console (apart from a Gameboy), but I absolutely do not believe that neither Nintendo, Rare or Sega have ever made an average or poor game - which is what most of the fans posting on these forums would have you believe.
> and PS2 is the most 'trendy' console out there, so
> casual gamers are most likely to own a PS2
> over another next gen console.
Hmmm... I don't *entirely* agree, but I'll try and explain why...
Although I've been playing videogames for 22 years now (and crikey do my thumbs ache... :-D), when I got my PlayStation 1995, I was what you would describe as a 'casual' gamer as far as consoles were concerned, as I'd never owned a console. (Well, I had, but it was some old 80's thing so I don't count that.)
I of course knew of Nintendo and Sega, and as you may have read in previous posts of mine, I originally went out to buy a Saturn with Panzer Dragoon. But I saw Wipeout running on a PlayStation, and bought that instead. Obviously I knew about Sony, but I didn't know about their console.
So, my point is - casual gamers won't necessarily buy the most popular machine, but may easily be swayed by what they see running on the machines in-store. If that is the case, then all the machines are (in my opintion) quite capable of holding their own and seducing equal numbers of new punters.
> like currently I think I read on ign.com
> about Naughty Dog, said something like they didn't care how much easier it would
> be to make games on another console, or how many extra features, etc. it had,
> they were going to work on PS2 cos that's where the most money is...
Well, it is a shame, but it's also good business sense. It also proves the point I made to Sonic that profit-margins are high on PS2, despite the 'difficulties' of development.
> I think developers should make games for
> the console they feel they can make games for best.
I think they should make games for all platforms available, as long as it is financially viable to do so, making the best game they can with regard to the original design spec. After all, if they can convert WRC2001 to the PS1... :-)
> Isn't that what seperates good games designers from
> great games designers?
In an ideal world. But we already know that the developers aren't like that - there are far too many sub-standard games available, with more on the way - on all platforms!
Sibs wrote:
The casual gamers comment... I think to
> say that casual gamers don't exist is a bit naieve (excuse my spelling if that
> is wrong). It is just like anything that becomes popular. It has the people who
> really do like it and are into it, and those who aren't really that into it, and
> just buy whatever 'looks cool' or everyone else is getting. They are the people
> who often don't read magazine reviews, just buy the games with the nicest
> graphics on impulse. Okay, maybe I should come up with another term, 'gamers who
> aren't informed' or something.
Thats what I think a casual gamer is aswell. They buy a game when they feel like it, and some times miss out on getting the best game avaiable due to having picked up a average game that had a pretty front cover. Hard core gamers would be us right now, as we are on these boards talking about games and some people on these boards have tons of knowledge. We buy games after reading a few reviews. If you have £40 and you need a new game you wouldnt buy a average game when you knew that a week later MGS2 or another amazing game was going to come.
Whether your a casual gamer or hardcore it doesnt really matter, as long as you enjoy playing the games.
The casual gamers comment... I think to
> say that casual gamers don't exist is a bit naieve (excuse my spelling if that
> is wrong). It is just like anything that becomes popular. It has the people who
> really do like it and are into it, and those who aren't really that into it, and
> just buy whatever 'looks cool' or everyone else is getting. They are the people
> who often don't read magazine reviews, just buy the games with the nicest
> graphics on impulse. Okay, maybe I should come up with another term, 'gamers who
> aren't informed' or something.
Thats what I think a casual gamer is aswell. They buy a game when they feel like it, and some times miss out on getting the best game avaiable due to having picked up a average game that had a pretty front cover. Hard core gamers would be us right now, as we are on these boards talking about games and some people on these boards have tons of knowledge. We buy games after reading a few reviews. If you have £40 and you need a new game you wouldnt buy a average game when you knew that a week later MGS2 or another amazing game was going to come.
Whether your a casual gamer or hardcore it doesnt really matter, as long as you enjoy playing the games.
Wookie, good points, but there is one that I must hold you to...
Middleware is in NO WAY cheaper than developing a game from scratch. If you want, I can publish the costs of various middleware options for you.
The only advantage of Middleware is that you get games out sooner, meaning you make back your money quicker... but it doesn't mean you'll make more money (except maybe that you could make another game quicker).
Sonic
Middleware is in NO WAY cheaper than developing a game from scratch. If you want, I can publish the costs of various middleware options for you.
The only advantage of Middleware is that you get games out sooner, meaning you make back your money quicker... but it doesn't mean you'll make more money (except maybe that you could make another game quicker).
Sonic
Geez, I seem good at stirring up controversy here.
;-)
Anyway, here goes...
First of all Wookie, I wasn't trying to say anything about the games themselves, I was just saying that (as you have said) that arguments are being twisted to suit the situation. PS2 owners will often say that the PS2 has much unlocked potential, and when you say 'ah it'll take longer to develop for' they say that there is middleware... well you simply aren't going to unlock the potential of the PS2 AS FAST (yes they will unlock it more slowly) as you would if you did all the coding yourself.
The casual gamers comment... I think to say that casual gamers don't exist is a bit naieve (excuse my spelling if that is wrong). It is just like anything that becomes popular. It has the people who really do like it and are into it, and those who aren't really that into it, and just buy whatever 'looks cool' or everyone else is getting. They are the people who often don't read magazine reviews, just buy the games with the nicest graphics on impulse. Okay, maybe I should come up with another term, 'gamers who aren't informed' or something. The point is that Sony introduced gaming to the masses, and there is nothing wrong with casual gamers, but quite often these casual gamers just buy a game on impulse because it 'looks cool' even if it is complete pants. Now I'm by no means saying that PS2 owners know nothing about gaming or anything, but with all honesty casual gamers do exist, and PS2 is the most 'trendy' console out there, so casual gamers are most likely to own a PS2 over another next gen console. I have heard people in shops talking to mates saying stuff about games, and it is quite clear that they haven't a clue what they are on about! And it is not just Sony fans, I have heard people talking about Nintendo too (not Sega... sorry Sonic!) that obviously are just talking rubbish. To say that these 'casual gamers' are figments of our imagination is stupid (no offense anyone).
Wookie, you said the following:
"If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot"
YES! Exactly! Well that is the trait of the casual (sorry 'un-informed') gamer! They do no research into a game before buying it just go, "oh the latest in the series, I'll get that" And no, I'm not saying that these are only present on Sonys console, but they are most evident there, becasue the PS2 is the most trendy console, so these people are going to get that just because it is the next Sony console! Informed gamers will get titles, not because they are franchises (would you get the next MGS, Mario, or Tony Hawks if it got all crappy reviews?) but because the game is a good one. Maybe the franchise factor will have some bearing on it, and indeed some franchises have become almost like a 'seal of quality', but you're not going to get a franchise game just because it is part of the franchise. I can't think of anything more to write about to convince you that casual gamers do exist, apart from say that they are widely accepted to exist by most videogame magazines, and most informed videogame players.
Anyway, the bit about making games on the best platform, I meant the best platform they could still make a profit on. Obviously I am not saying that a developer should go, "well we'll make a loss on this system, but who cares, it's only money!" I mean, like currently I think I read on ign.com about Naughty Dog, said something like they didn't care how much easier it would be to make games on another console, or how many extra features, etc. it had, they were going to work on PS2 cos that's where the most money is... I don't think that is the right point of view. I think developers should make games for the console they feel they can make games for best. I'm not trying to say which console it would be, as you have pointed out some developers like the PS2 arcitecture, but ultimately the designers should WANT to create the best game they can, and not just be in it for the money. Isn't that what seperates good games designers from great games designers?
(maybe not, but that's my little speech over, at least for now.)
;-)
Anyway, here goes...
First of all Wookie, I wasn't trying to say anything about the games themselves, I was just saying that (as you have said) that arguments are being twisted to suit the situation. PS2 owners will often say that the PS2 has much unlocked potential, and when you say 'ah it'll take longer to develop for' they say that there is middleware... well you simply aren't going to unlock the potential of the PS2 AS FAST (yes they will unlock it more slowly) as you would if you did all the coding yourself.
The casual gamers comment... I think to say that casual gamers don't exist is a bit naieve (excuse my spelling if that is wrong). It is just like anything that becomes popular. It has the people who really do like it and are into it, and those who aren't really that into it, and just buy whatever 'looks cool' or everyone else is getting. They are the people who often don't read magazine reviews, just buy the games with the nicest graphics on impulse. Okay, maybe I should come up with another term, 'gamers who aren't informed' or something. The point is that Sony introduced gaming to the masses, and there is nothing wrong with casual gamers, but quite often these casual gamers just buy a game on impulse because it 'looks cool' even if it is complete pants. Now I'm by no means saying that PS2 owners know nothing about gaming or anything, but with all honesty casual gamers do exist, and PS2 is the most 'trendy' console out there, so casual gamers are most likely to own a PS2 over another next gen console. I have heard people in shops talking to mates saying stuff about games, and it is quite clear that they haven't a clue what they are on about! And it is not just Sony fans, I have heard people talking about Nintendo too (not Sega... sorry Sonic!) that obviously are just talking rubbish. To say that these 'casual gamers' are figments of our imagination is stupid (no offense anyone).
Wookie, you said the following:
"If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot"
YES! Exactly! Well that is the trait of the casual (sorry 'un-informed') gamer! They do no research into a game before buying it just go, "oh the latest in the
Anyway, the bit about making games on the best platform, I meant the best platform they could still make a profit on. Obviously I am not saying that a developer should go, "well we'll make a loss on this system, but who cares, it's only money!" I mean, like currently I think I read on ign.com about Naughty Dog, said something like they didn't care how much easier it would be to make games on another console, or how many extra features, etc. it had, they were going to work on PS2 cos that's where the most money is... I don't think that is the right point of view. I think developers should make games for the console they feel they can make games for best. I'm not trying to say which console it would be, as you have pointed out some developers like the PS2 arcitecture, but ultimately the designers should WANT to create the best game they can, and not just be in it for the money. Isn't that what seperates good games designers from great games designers?
(maybe not, but that's my little speech over, at least for now.)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I just get sssooooooo ticked
> off with that "casual" and "hardcore" crud.
Us "hardcore" gamers were quite offeneded with that remark ;-)
> I just get sssooooooo ticked
> off with that "casual" and "hardcore" crud.
Us "hardcore" gamers were quite offeneded with that remark ;-)
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Ah! But you miss my point...
Sonic... I didn't miss any of your points - that reply was not to you, but to Sibs! What happened was, I started writing the reply soon after Sibs made his post, and ideally it would have immediately followed (i.e. around 8:45pm); but something came up and I had to leave my PC for a while - then I finished it later, but didn't think to check if there had been any replies since. :-(
So, sorry for any confusion, but to address your points anyway...
> however, what about the PS3? The plain fact is that had
> the PS2 and Xbox been launched as Sony and MS's first
> consoles, the Xbox would get far more development.
I agree 100%! But then, had the machines been launched at roughly the same point in time, PS2 would have been untouchable.
Consider: Had MS gone down the same PC-tech-based development route at the time PS2 was first announced, PC graphics technology was nowhere near the standard that PS was touting.
Xbox is using graphics technology which is 18 months to 2 years newer than that in the PS2 - and with that taken into consideration, PS2 stands up very well against the Xbox, and even better against the Gamecube (in terms of raw power).
> The reason this isn't the case is because developers
> jumped onto the PS2 bandwagon, and that there wasn't
> any competition!
Well, there was... the Sega Dreamcast. A comparable machine, from a major, much-loved developer, which was supposedly easier to develop for - and developers still took the 'tougher' option.
> In the next generation of consoles there will be rife
> competition.
I think there will be in this 'round' too. But we'll benefit from that, so it can only be a good thing.
> Not at all! Middleware is JUST as expensive as making a game from scratch!
> Check out the prices for middleware software (if you want I'll quote some for
> you). Anyway, middleware does lower production times, but nothing more.
For the initial outlay, yes - but after that, shorter dev time = lower costs, so it does save money.
> Oh, and if you use the same middleware for 2 games,
> you have to pay for twice the rights!
True, you have to pay licensing fees, but these will be more than compensated for by the reduction in production time/costs. Otherwise there wouldn't be a market for middleware - no company in their right mind will use a system which pushes production costs up and their profit down.
> BUT would developers rather go with a console that was cheap to
> develop for throughout the life (xbox), OR go for a console that was expensive
> at the beginning, and cheaper later (PS2).
Based purely on those factors, the logical choice would be the first option. But the one thing you haven't accounted for there is user base. If you know that a system will be expensive initially, but cheaper later, AND will have (or already does have) millions of users, then the second option becomes much more attractive.
So, as time goes by, production costs fall, the profits rise; the user-base grows, the profits rise more. Companies tend to look forwards rather than backwards... and what do companies prefer - a consistent profit margin, or an increasing profit margin?
> Like I said, had the consoles been
> the first for each company, and gone head-to-head, the Xbox would have had far
> more developers.
Head-to-head *now*, yes - but as I said above, head-to-head at the time, Xbox's technology and spec would have been nowhere near that of the current machine.
> Ummm... but I said I'm not talking about the PS2
> at ALL!
I explained this at the start of this post... :-)
> If the PS3 and Ybox are launched head-to-head, AND Sony continue to use
> "revolutionary" architecture that is more expensive to develop for (at
> the start) then clearly many developers may sway to the easy-to-develop-for
> Ybox.
True. But one more thing to consider: Sony made things easy with PS1, harder with PS2. Who's to say MS won't try something similar? :-D
> Ah! But you miss my point...
Sonic... I didn't miss any of your points - that reply was not to you, but to Sibs! What happened was, I started writing the reply soon after Sibs made his post, and ideally it would have immediately followed (i.e. around 8:45pm); but something came up and I had to leave my PC for a while - then I finished it later, but didn't think to check if there had been any replies since. :-(
So, sorry for any confusion, but to address your points anyway...
> however, what about the PS3? The plain fact is that had
> the PS2 and Xbox been launched as Sony and MS's first
> consoles, the Xbox would get far more development.
I agree 100%! But then, had the machines been launched at roughly the same point in time, PS2 would have been untouchable.
Consider: Had MS gone down the same PC-tech-based development route at the time PS2 was first announced, PC graphics technology was nowhere near the standard that PS was touting.
Xbox is using graphics technology which is 18 months to 2 years newer than that in the PS2 - and with that taken into consideration, PS2 stands up very well against the Xbox, and even better against the Gamecube (in terms of raw power).
> The reason this isn't the case is because developers
> jumped onto the PS2 bandwagon, and that there wasn't
> any competition!
Well, there was... the Sega Dreamcast. A comparable machine, from a major, much-loved developer, which was supposedly easier to develop for - and developers still took the 'tougher' option.
> In the next generation of consoles there will be rife
> competition.
I think there will be in this 'round' too. But we'll benefit from that, so it can only be a good thing.
> Not at all! Middleware is JUST as expensive as making a game from scratch!
> Check out the prices for middleware software (if you want I'll quote some for
> you). Anyway, middleware does lower production times, but nothing more.
For the initial outlay, yes - but after that, shorter dev time = lower costs, so it does save money.
> Oh, and if you use the same middleware for 2 games,
> you have to pay for twice the rights!
True, you have to pay licensing fees, but these will be more than compensated for by the reduction in production time/costs. Otherwise there wouldn't be a market for middleware - no company in their right mind will use a system which pushes production costs up and their profit down.
> BUT would developers rather go with a console that was cheap to
> develop for throughout the life (xbox), OR go for a console that was expensive
> at the beginning, and cheaper later (PS2).
Based purely on those factors, the logical choice would be the first option. But the one thing you haven't accounted for there is user base. If you know that a system will be expensive initially, but cheaper later, AND will have (or already does have) millions of users, then the second option becomes much more attractive.
So, as time goes by, production costs fall, the profits rise; the user-base grows, the profits rise more. Companies tend to look forwards rather than backwards... and what do companies prefer - a consistent profit margin, or an increasing profit margin?
> Like I said, had the consoles been
> the first for each company, and gone head-to-head, the Xbox would have had far
> more developers.
Head-to-head *now*, yes - but as I said above, head-to-head at the time, Xbox's technology and spec would have been nowhere near that of the current machine.
> Ummm... but I said I'm not talking about the PS2
> at ALL!
I explained this at the start of this post... :-)
> If the PS3 and Ybox are launched head-to-head, AND Sony continue to use
> "revolutionary" architecture that is more expensive to develop for (at
> the start) then clearly many developers may sway to the easy-to-develop-for
> Ybox.
True. But one more thing to consider: Sony made things easy with PS1, harder with PS2. Who's to say MS won't try something similar? :-D
Page: