The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As you probably all know by now, MS has said that they expect to launch Xbox 2 in 2005. The question I ask is: What's the point?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
Xbox was released in the US on November 15th, 2001. Within only 4 years, MS hopes to have its successor out. I don't think that they need to. Look at the PS2.
It has been out for nearly 3 years and, some would say, that it's only just beginning to come into its own. Some would say that the early life of the PS2 was pretty slow, with not many good titles out. The network adaptor is only just starting to be used...
Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Xbox launched with top games, but it was only in the Christmas run-up that other top quality titles were released. Xbox Live isn't even officially launched over here yet either.
What I'm trying to say is that consoles take time to mature and get to their best. It takes developers a couple of years and a number of games to get the best out of the system. Some developer say that they still haven't got the most out of the PS2 yet, and that's been around for about 4 years (if you include the time that the dev kits were about before the machine was actually launched).
For example, the NES was first released in America in 1985, first it was only released in New York, but in 1986 it was released nationwide. In 1991, Nintendo release the SNES in the US. That's some 6 years after the original NES was launched.
The Playstation launched in Japan in 1994. When was the PS2 released over there? 2000. 6 years later. The Nintendo 64 was launched in Japan in 1995, and the GameCube launched over there on September 13th, 2001. Again, 6 years later.
Why, then, do MS and Nintendo want to launch their next console in 2005, only 4 years after the last one?
Surely, by 2005, there will be huge numbers of games out for both the GC and Xbox. Both will have had all the bugs ironed out with the online play. There will be older titles for sale on the cheap, and everything will be working nicely.
What's the point in releasing new hardware? To beat Sony to it? Who cares? Only the most dedicated people buy a new console at launch. Are MS and Nintendo so scared that existing customers will buy a PS3 simply because its out before the Xbox 2 or GC 2?
Also, what will the new systems offer that the existing ones don't? Both have spot on graphics and sound. Both already have online capabilities. Both already have user bases and games in development for the next few years.
No developers have got anywhere near the most out of the Xbox or GC hardware yet. So its hardly like a new console will allow developers to release better looking and sounding games.
I really can't see the point in eith Nintendo or MS releasing a new console so soon, just to get ahead of Sony.
Thoughts?
Page:
The Dreamcast failed because of the lack of 3rd party commitement. No matter how good a console is, and the Dreamcast is a damn fine machine, if there is a lack of 3rd party developement then the console will fail. Lets face it companies want to make games for the PS2 becasue they have by far the biggest user base and will therefore sell more games on the PS2. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony (SEGA when the DC was alive) all make good game in their own right but it's the other developers that are the life blood of their consoles, thet depend on the other guys keeping business ticking over. Why do you think all the rumours about MS buying every developer that exists are flying about.
Nintendo do well in Japan.
MS do well in America
Sony do well everywhere.
To answer the question 'do we really need Xbox 2?'. Yes. Without the competition in the console market we wouldn't have 3 good consoles competing against each other. Without Atari, Nintendo, Sega and who ever else who started the console wars 15-20 years ago we would not be where we are today. We need competition to create great games like GTA: Vice City, Pro Evo 2, Halo, Splnter Cell, Metroid Prime, etc. And yes, it is all about money. The games console market creates more money than Hollywood and thats a lot of cash.
BB.
Nintendo do well in Japan.
MS do well in America
Sony do well everywhere.
To answer the question 'do we really need Xbox 2?'. Yes. Without the competition in the console market we wouldn't have 3 good consoles competing against each other. Without Atari, Nintendo, Sega and who ever else who started the console wars 15-20 years ago we would not be where we are today. We need competition to create great games like GTA: Vice City, Pro Evo 2, Halo, Splnter Cell, Metroid Prime, etc. And yes, it is all about money. The games console market creates more money than Hollywood and thats a lot of cash.
BB.
I think Nintendo is doing well at the moment - some mainstream games (Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, NBA Courtside 2002, etc) and some true classics (Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Zelda, etc).
Yes
It's like asking Muse to write a pop song, if they did it would be crap, instead of brilliant like all their current ones.
Although Nintendo have the ability to make mainstream games decent (like Metroid Prime) I'd much rather they didn't.
It's like asking Muse to write a pop song, if they did it would be crap, instead of brilliant like all their current ones.
Although Nintendo have the ability to make mainstream games decent (like Metroid Prime) I'd much rather they didn't.
I'd say Nintendo are just beginning to actually wake up to what Joe Public actually wants, really. Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime and others really prove that if Nintendo has to bring out a blockbuster every so often - they do it damn well.
Mantis wrote:
> I don't think Nintendo, like sega, can do mainstream games.
This is very true, and you know why? Because when Nintendo and Sega were at the top, gaming wasn't mainstream. Now that it has become mainstream, they seem reluctant to go along with it.
It's almost like they're saying "We know how to do our style of games, so we'll carry on with it regardless".
> I don't think Nintendo, like sega, can do mainstream games.
This is very true, and you know why? Because when Nintendo and Sega were at the top, gaming wasn't mainstream. Now that it has become mainstream, they seem reluctant to go along with it.
It's almost like they're saying "We know how to do our style of games, so we'll carry on with it regardless".
Whitestripes wrote:
> Nintendo will be around a while, but they'll never have anything more than their niche.
Are they relying too much on their fanbase to get by? I don't think they can go fully mainstream (bar pokemon) as lets face it no matter how good a zelda or Mario is it ain't gonna compete sales wise with a GTA.
I don't think Nintendo, like sega, can do mainstream games.
> Nintendo will be around a while, but they'll never have anything more than their niche.
Are they relying too much on their fanbase to get by? I don't think they can go fully mainstream (bar pokemon) as lets face it no matter how good a zelda or Mario is it ain't gonna compete sales wise with a GTA.
I don't think Nintendo, like sega, can do mainstream games.
No, I disagree. If Nintendo *really* pushed the GameCube (and I'm talking along the levels of Microsoft and the X-Box here) they could achieve so much better sales it's ridiculous. But they're happy to take a back seat and *still* beat Microsoft. I'm fairly confident that Nintendo will be able to remain in the hardware business.
If not - it's not a HUGE loss. They make the best games, and I'd be happy to play them on any console.
If not - it's not a HUGE loss. They make the best games, and I'd be happy to play them on any console.
Maverick42 wrote:
> No matter how much money Microsoft have, Nintendo have enough.
> Microsoft are losing profits on X-Box by the second
And making 20 times as much in all their other merchindise.
You're debating the wrong thing, eventually Microsoft's consoles will hold the number one spot, something that Nintendo will never acheive again.
Nintendo will be around a while, but they'll never have anything more than their niche.
> No matter how much money Microsoft have, Nintendo have enough.
> Microsoft are losing profits on X-Box by the second
And making 20 times as much in all their other merchindise.
You're debating the wrong thing, eventually Microsoft's consoles will hold the number one spot, something that Nintendo will never acheive again.
Nintendo will be around a while, but they'll never have anything more than their niche.
Hmm.
Nothing is for certain, but money talks.
Nothing is for certain, but money talks.
Cyclone wrote:
> MS have way more cash than Nintendo. And as money makes the world go
> around, and *buys games developers* etc, its inevitable.
No matter how much money Microsoft have, Nintendo have enough. Microsoft are losing profits on X-Box by the second - and Nintendo have managed to keep ahead of them despite spending MUCH less than MS have. Nothing is for certain.
> MS have way more cash than Nintendo. And as money makes the world go
> around, and *buys games developers* etc, its inevitable.
No matter how much money Microsoft have, Nintendo have enough. Microsoft are losing profits on X-Box by the second - and Nintendo have managed to keep ahead of them despite spending MUCH less than MS have. Nothing is for certain.
Page: