The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It would appear that developers are getting increasingly concerned at the way the Gamecube has cemented it's place as the 3rd console of choice and it's poor performance.
Sega recently shelved all it's GC sports titles in development due to poor performance of its GC titles.
Now one of the big hitters THQ has thrown doubt on the viability of developing for the Gamecube due to the more expensive (non standard discs) developement costs, but mostly to do with the GC continued poor performance particularly compared to the PS2.
Quote taken form Gamepro.com
"Our GameCube portfolio did not perform up to expectations," CEO Brian Farrell said during the conference call. "In response to this, we have reduced the number of products in development for the GameCube platform."
Sega recently shelved all it's GC sports titles in development due to poor performance of its GC titles.
Now one of the big hitters THQ has thrown doubt on the viability of developing for the Gamecube due to the more expensive (non standard discs) developement costs, but mostly to do with the GC continued poor performance particularly compared to the PS2.
Quote taken form Gamepro.com
"Our GameCube portfolio did not perform up to expectations," CEO Brian Farrell said during the conference call. "In response to this, we have reduced the number of products in development for the GameCube platform."
Page:
Unbeliever wrote:
> I don't understand. All this defending the PS2 is all well and good
> (as well as going into the technicalities of the hardware) but surely
> a standard PC would be more appropriate for stuff like that in any
> case?
>
> The PS2 is based on technology that's not too recent, to tell the
> truth. The machine's been out for over two years. That's not to say
> the GC is either. However, when designing a console, hardware is
> always outdated within a matter of months due to the fast paced
> technological advancements in this day and age.
>
> You can pontificate about the PS2's "superior" capabilites
> and the like, but I'm not sure what you're tring to say here. Has the
> PS2 got more expandability than the GC? Perhaps. Has anyone been
> utilising the extra capabilites? Not that I'm aware of, unless you're
> counting extra compression methods etc. which are really the forte of
> the game designers rather than extra hardware uses.
>
> So, to reiterate, what point are you trying to establish?
I wouldn't call USB, FireWire, and DVD outdated. A PC can do a very good job at working with stuff like digital camera's, printers, scanners, etc. But I think that Sony's vision is to have more of this "digital convergence" without turning on a PC every time. In the original stuff that came with my PS2, there is a drawing of what could be done and how it connects to the PS2. The DVD-Video is great if you wan't a PS2 and don't have a normal DVD player yet. And the Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS are used. DVD-ROM allows for bigger games since DVD-ROM can hold much more data than the Game Cube disc's.
> I don't understand. All this defending the PS2 is all well and good
> (as well as going into the technicalities of the hardware) but surely
> a standard PC would be more appropriate for stuff like that in any
> case?
>
> The PS2 is based on technology that's not too recent, to tell the
> truth. The machine's been out for over two years. That's not to say
> the GC is either. However, when designing a console, hardware is
> always outdated within a matter of months due to the fast paced
> technological advancements in this day and age.
>
> You can pontificate about the PS2's "superior" capabilites
> and the like, but I'm not sure what you're tring to say here. Has the
> PS2 got more expandability than the GC? Perhaps. Has anyone been
> utilising the extra capabilites? Not that I'm aware of, unless you're
> counting extra compression methods etc. which are really the forte of
> the game designers rather than extra hardware uses.
>
> So, to reiterate, what point are you trying to establish?
I wouldn't call USB, FireWire, and DVD outdated. A PC can do a very good job at working with stuff like digital camera's, printers, scanners, etc. But I think that Sony's vision is to have more of this "digital convergence" without turning on a PC every time. In the original stuff that came with my PS2, there is a drawing of what could be done and how it connects to the PS2. The DVD-Video is great if you wan't a PS2 and don't have a normal DVD player yet. And the Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS are used. DVD-ROM allows for bigger games since DVD-ROM can hold much more data than the Game Cube disc's.
Nice one, Untitled. I've known THQ has a habit of making poor games for the last 10-12 years...
a few points
1) THQ make crap games anyway
2) The only reason their games dont sell well is because they're crap and dont appeal to the more hardcore gamer, which most gamecube owners are
3) Most of the games they make get released on the cube months after the other consoles so people with more than 1 console may already have it, or the news of how crap it is will have broken, and so no cube owners will want it
4) The gamecube is anctually in 2nd place, its sold more consoles than the x box in total.
5)the development costs wont have anything to do with the gamecube discs that the publishers promlem, and the gamecube discs are not much more expensive than regular cds anyway,
1) THQ make crap games anyway
2) The only reason their games dont sell well is because they're crap and dont appeal to the more hardcore gamer, which most gamecube owners are
3) Most of the games they make get released on the cube months after the other consoles so people with more than 1 console may already have it, or the news of how crap it is will have broken, and so no cube owners will want it
4) The gamecube is anctually in 2nd place, its sold more consoles than the x box in total.
5)the development costs wont have anything to do with the gamecube discs that the publishers promlem, and the gamecube discs are not much more expensive than regular cds anyway,
I don't understand. All this defending the PS2 is all well and good (as well as going into the technicalities of the hardware) but surely a standard PC would be more appropriate for stuff like that in any case?
The PS2 is based on technology that's not too recent, to tell the truth. The machine's been out for over two years. That's not to say the GC is either. However, when designing a console, hardware is always outdated within a matter of months due to the fast paced technological advancements in this day and age.
You can pontificate about the PS2's "superior" capabilites and the like, but I'm not sure what you're tring to say here. Has the PS2 got more expandability than the GC? Perhaps. Has anyone been utilising the extra capabilites? Not that I'm aware of, unless you're counting extra compression methods etc. which are really the forte of the game designers rather than extra hardware uses.
So, to reiterate, what point are you trying to establish?
The PS2 is based on technology that's not too recent, to tell the truth. The machine's been out for over two years. That's not to say the GC is either. However, when designing a console, hardware is always outdated within a matter of months due to the fast paced technological advancements in this day and age.
You can pontificate about the PS2's "superior" capabilites and the like, but I'm not sure what you're tring to say here. Has the PS2 got more expandability than the GC? Perhaps. Has anyone been utilising the extra capabilites? Not that I'm aware of, unless you're counting extra compression methods etc. which are really the forte of the game designers rather than extra hardware uses.
So, to reiterate, what point are you trying to establish?
Update2.01 wrote:
> idlewild wrote:
> Top score wrote:
> Update 2.01 has landed a body blow and Insane is OUT FOR THE COUNT.
>
> I just nearly wet myself laughing.
>
> I can imagine Top Score sitting at home getting sexually excited
> over
> IB not replying and Update making lies about the PS2....
Where have I lied about the PS2?
> idlewild wrote:
> Top score wrote:
> Update 2.01 has landed a body blow and Insane is OUT FOR THE COUNT.
>
> I just nearly wet myself laughing.
>
> I can imagine Top Score sitting at home getting sexually excited
> over
> IB not replying and Update making lies about the PS2....
Where have I lied about the PS2?
idlewild wrote:
> Top score wrote:
> Update 2.01 has landed a body blow and Insane is OUT FOR THE COUNT.
>
> I just nearly wet myself laughing.
>
> I can imagine Top Score sitting at home getting sexually excited over
> IB not replying and Update making lies about the PS2....
Where I have I lied about the PS2?
> Top score wrote:
> Update 2.01 has landed a body blow and Insane is OUT FOR THE COUNT.
>
> I just nearly wet myself laughing.
>
> I can imagine Top Score sitting at home getting sexually excited over
> IB not replying and Update making lies about the PS2....
Where I have I lied about the PS2?
> Top score wrote:
> I an inflatable sex doll at home that I make love to every night.
I hope you two are very happy together
> I an inflatable sex doll at home that I make love to every night.
I hope you two are very happy together
Top score wrote:
> I am a complete and utter fool!
I agree.
> I am a complete and utter fool!
I agree.
phi11ip wrote:
> Update2.01 wrote:
>
> Yea but, like this computer in front of me. An image might look @hit
> on screen, but the print quality (which is more important to most
> people) is dependant only on software and printer.
>
> Are you saying that you've seen monitors where a printer can print in
> a better resolution than the monitor itself?
>
> That's incredibly crap, you still use BBC monitors?
No no no. Different monitors produce slightly different quality. For example, here I have a nearly new 19" Mitsi FLAT CRT screen and in the corner is a basic 14" monitor. As you would expect, the 19" Mitsi produces a better image than the old 14" display. But thats not to say the 14" screen is an old BBC monitor, it's not - it's a standard entry level pc monitor.
Now with a tv, the display from a source such as a PC will be more fuzzy. Get a PC with TV-Out and run MS Word and display it on both the pc screen and on the tv and you will see the difference. This is also true of those clever little internet tv boxes. They will display web pages on your tv, but the display will be more fuzzy than on a pc monitor. So unless a "software workaround" is developed, a future console displaying pictures from a camera or web source may well look more fuzzy than on a pc. But if you can print out, and providing the software is done right, there is no reason why the printed item should look any different from the same printer running on a pc in the normal way.
> Update2.01 wrote:
>
> Yea but, like this computer in front of me. An image might look @hit
> on screen, but the print quality (which is more important to most
> people) is dependant only on software and printer.
>
> Are you saying that you've seen monitors where a printer can print in
> a better resolution than the monitor itself?
>
> That's incredibly crap, you still use BBC monitors?
No no no. Different monitors produce slightly different quality. For example, here I have a nearly new 19" Mitsi FLAT CRT screen and in the corner is a basic 14" monitor. As you would expect, the 19" Mitsi produces a better image than the old 14" display. But thats not to say the 14" screen is an old BBC monitor, it's not - it's a standard entry level pc monitor.
Now with a tv, the display from a source such as a PC will be more fuzzy. Get a PC with TV-Out and run MS Word and display it on both the pc screen and on the tv and you will see the difference. This is also true of those clever little internet tv boxes. They will display web pages on your tv, but the display will be more fuzzy than on a pc monitor. So unless a "software workaround" is developed, a future console displaying pictures from a camera or web source may well look more fuzzy than on a pc. But if you can print out, and providing the software is done right, there is no reason why the printed item should look any different from the same printer running on a pc in the normal way.
Top score wrote:
> Insane Bartender wrote:
>
>
> Once again the no-brainer known as Insane
Read his Half-Life posts.
Those'll change your mind.
Unless, of course, your a single minded prat.
Oh, you are
> Insane Bartender wrote:
>
>
> Once again the no-brainer known as Insane
Read his Half-Life posts.
Those'll change your mind.
Unless, of course, your a single minded prat.
Oh, you are
Page: