The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok, I'm reading posts on here, well, mainly in the PS2 forum, about the XBox.
"MS don't know what they're doing! They've never released a console before!"
Now, I personally think that it is a good thing that MS haven't released a console before. They have not been.... affected could be the right word. They have not been affected by the industry.
And this is a good thing.
They have no preconceived ideas about how "things should be done" and the "way things are" which are two factors that can stifle the growth and development of any industry.
Think about it.
When Sony came in with the PSX, ok, they'd had a little help from Nintendo, but then decided to go their own way. What did they do?
Realise that cartridges were crap and CD's were the way to go. Who's to say that if Sony hadn't done that, then we'd still be playing from cartridges today?
The benefits of CD outweighed the negatives, as far as Sony were concerned. More room for data storage, much better sound quality etc
Nintendo still used cartridges for the N64, and some would say that they suffered for it.
Sony in their "ignorance" won the day, as some would say.
So let's bring ourselves up to the future.
MS release the XBox. They have no preconceived ideas. They haven't been swayed by anything. They want online gaming, so chuck an ethernet card in. They want to be able to download stuff, so chuck a HDD in as well.
How long would it have taken for these things to become standard if MS hadn't done them? I know that Sega started the ball rolling with online console gaming, but would Sony have taken up the challenge?
Would Sony be releasing a HDD? Would we be talking about playing online FFXI this summer? Or online PD 2 on the GC?
Or would we have had to wait until the PS3 and the GC2?
Sony have already said that they may bring the release of the PS3 forward to combat MS, so the XBox is obviously having some effect on the industy.
And it's an effect for the positive, in my view.
Lot's of questions, not man answers, at least by me. Thoughts?
"MS don't know what they're doing! They've never released a console before!"
Now, I personally think that it is a good thing that MS haven't released a console before. They have not been.... affected could be the right word. They have not been affected by the industry.
And this is a good thing.
They have no preconceived ideas about how "things should be done" and the "way things are" which are two factors that can stifle the growth and development of any industry.
Think about it.
When Sony came in with the PSX, ok, they'd had a little help from Nintendo, but then decided to go their own way. What did they do?
Realise that cartridges were crap and CD's were the way to go. Who's to say that if Sony hadn't done that, then we'd still be playing from cartridges today?
The benefits of CD outweighed the negatives, as far as Sony were concerned. More room for data storage, much better sound quality etc
Nintendo still used cartridges for the N64, and some would say that they suffered for it.
Sony in their "ignorance" won the day, as some would say.
So let's bring ourselves up to the future.
MS release the XBox. They have no preconceived ideas. They haven't been swayed by anything. They want online gaming, so chuck an ethernet card in. They want to be able to download stuff, so chuck a HDD in as well.
How long would it have taken for these things to become standard if MS hadn't done them? I know that Sega started the ball rolling with online console gaming, but would Sony have taken up the challenge?
Would Sony be releasing a HDD? Would we be talking about playing online FFXI this summer? Or online PD 2 on the GC?
Or would we have had to wait until the PS3 and the GC2?
Sony have already said that they may bring the release of the PS3 forward to combat MS, so the XBox is obviously having some effect on the industy.
And it's an effect for the positive, in my view.
Lot's of questions, not man answers, at least by me. Thoughts?
Page:
Great original post and discussion.
People in this thread have been saying Halo is the only good launch game. I found that hard to believe, until I played on te other 4 main lunch games (PGR, Oddworld, Amped, DOA3).
They are simply just not fun. PGR I found slow, unresponsive and completely unoriginal. Oddworld was, as the title suggests, odd. But not in a good way. It was boring because it was overcomplicated. Amped was SSX with the humour taken out, and realism put in, again unoriginal and completely unnecessary if you have SSX (which I do). DOA3 was the best looking of the lot, but it was simply put the same gameplay wise as the hundreds pf other fighters around at the moment, with virtually nothing new.
On the whole, then, I was very disappointed but the XBox launch line up, and the GC's stomps all over it.
By the way, N64 held roughly 25% of the home console market during its life, and even if GC flops completely and XBox dominates (which won't happen), Ninty will simply fall back on its dominace in the handheld market to make sure Nintendo doesn't become what Sega did.
People in this thread have been saying Halo is the only good launch game. I found that hard to believe, until I played on te other 4 main lunch games (PGR, Oddworld, Amped, DOA3).
They are simply just not fun. PGR I found slow, unresponsive and completely unoriginal. Oddworld was, as the title suggests, odd. But not in a good way. It was boring because it was overcomplicated. Amped was SSX with the humour taken out, and realism put in, again unoriginal and completely unnecessary if you have SSX (which I do). DOA3 was the best looking of the lot, but it was simply put the same gameplay wise as the hundreds pf other fighters around at the moment, with virtually nothing new.
On the whole, then, I was very disappointed but the XBox launch line up, and the GC's stomps all over it.
By the way, N64 held roughly 25% of the home console market during its life, and even if GC flops completely and XBox dominates (which won't happen), Ninty will simply fall back on its dominace in the handheld market to make sure Nintendo doesn't become what Sega did.
I disagree that Nintendo will go out of business if the X-Box does better than it.
I'll explain this with 3 words.
Game Boy Advance.
I'll explain this with 3 words.
Game Boy Advance.
I don't believe Nintendo will go bankrupt - whatever happens.
Look at the N64. I don't know any statistics, but it certainly had lower sales that the playstation, and games now are pratically non-existant. Yet the Gamecube is as viable as any other next generation console, and the company still has an enormous share of the console market through the GBC and GBA. I have a Game Boy Advance - and I've bought it because it is the only handheld console available (and for the first time it has some decent games).
Now, as well as free advertising (back of every GBA box), and games that will link with the GameCube, Nintendo has a console that every games publisher (who wants to make a handheld game), and every customer (who wants a handheld console) HAS to support.
I don't believe that any other company, even if they make a handheld five times better than the GBA will be able to get more than a tiny number of sales for several years (and the GBA goes away), and even then they'll have enormous trouble competing with the inevitable next Game Boy console.
I honestly hope that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft can all continue in the console market. I will probably not buy an X-Box, because I don't have £300. I will probably not buy a GameCube, because I cannot see any games on it that I would like to buy (even if I do like their GBA counterparts). If I were to buy any console, it would be the PS2 because its hardly any more expensive than the GC, and there are plenty of games that I would like (FF10+ for starters)
That's not to say that I want Nintendo to vanish. If anything, I would prefer a console market with plenty of competition, and all publishers and companies having to fight with original, fun and good-looking titles. Each of the 3 new consoles deserves to do brilliantly. And I hope (and believe) that each of them can do so simultaneously.
Goodness that was the longest post I've posted in here for ages,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
Look at the N64. I don't know any statistics, but it certainly had lower sales that the playstation, and games now are pratically non-existant. Yet the Gamecube is as viable as any other next generation console, and the company still has an enormous share of the console market through the GBC and GBA. I have a Game Boy Advance - and I've bought it because it is the only handheld console available (and for the first time it has some decent games).
Now, as well as free advertising (back of every GBA box), and games that will link with the GameCube, Nintendo has a console that every games publisher (who wants to make a handheld game), and every customer (who wants a handheld console) HAS to support.
I don't believe that any other company, even if they make a handheld five times better than the GBA will be able to get more than a tiny number of sales for several years (and the GBA goes away), and even then they'll have enormous trouble competing with the inevitable next Game Boy console.
I honestly hope that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft can all continue in the console market. I will probably not buy an X-Box, because I don't have £300. I will probably not buy a GameCube, because I cannot see any games on it that I would like to buy (even if I do like their GBA counterparts). If I were to buy any console, it would be the PS2 because its hardly any more expensive than the GC, and there are plenty of games that I would like (FF10+ for starters)
That's not to say that I want Nintendo to vanish. If anything, I would prefer a console market with plenty of competition, and all publishers and companies having to fight with original, fun and good-looking titles. Each of the 3 new consoles deserves to do brilliantly. And I hope (and believe) that each of them can do so simultaneously.
Goodness that was the longest post I've posted in here for ages,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
er-no wrote:
> If the XBox succeeds it will put Nintendo out of the console market....
Read my post on "the future is bright- consoles wars are over"...
The market is more than big enough to support all 3 consoles
Sonic
> If the XBox succeeds it will put Nintendo out of the console market....
Read my post on "the future is bright- consoles wars are over"...
The market is more than big enough to support all 3 consoles
Sonic
I imagine it will be successful, simply because of the size of the market these days.
No doubt it will sell out at launch, they've just got to keep it going with decent games.
No doubt it will sell out at launch, they've just got to keep it going with decent games.
"Bringing innovation won't necessarily bring success though."
True.
But it will if you add to it MS huge marketing budget, and the hundreds of titles in the PC back catalogue that can be easily ported across.
Compare to the PSX again:
Sony had a large marketing budget, some innovation, and a huge library of (some would say mediocre) games. Look what happened there.
If MS can bring the same, who's to say that the XBox won't be a next-gen version of the PSX?
True.
But it will if you add to it MS huge marketing budget, and the hundreds of titles in the PC back catalogue that can be easily ported across.
Compare to the PSX again:
Sony had a large marketing budget, some innovation, and a huge library of (some would say mediocre) games. Look what happened there.
If MS can bring the same, who's to say that the XBox won't be a next-gen version of the PSX?
Bringing innovation won't necessarily bring success though.
I think the success of the Xbox depends on the marketing, and how quickly they can follow up their initial batch of games, with more quality.
Many people that bought a PS2 at launch found themselves a little underwhelmed by it. Many sold their consoles. Some bought them back later, others didn't. Microsoft need to have quality games released not just at launch, but soon after too.
Nintendo have held back Super Smash Bros and Pikmin from launch, and here they follow one month and two months later respectively. They did something similar in both North America and Japan, and it has helped to boost sales of the console, and there has been something to look forward to.
Microsoft have Halo. What else is in the pipeline that will keep peoples interest?
If, come May, there's no sign of a follow up to a successful start, will Xbox's be traded in?
I don't know much about what's coming to the Xbox in the months after launch, but I reckon whatever is is more important than those first few games.
I think the success of the Xbox depends on the marketing, and how quickly they can follow up their initial batch of games, with more quality.
Many people that bought a PS2 at launch found themselves a little underwhelmed by it. Many sold their consoles. Some bought them back later, others didn't. Microsoft need to have quality games released not just at launch, but soon after too.
Nintendo have held back Super Smash Bros and Pikmin from launch, and here they follow one month and two months later respectively. They did something similar in both North America and Japan, and it has helped to boost sales of the console, and there has been something to look forward to.
Microsoft have Halo. What else is in the pipeline that will keep peoples interest?
If, come May, there's no sign of a follow up to a successful start, will Xbox's be traded in?
I don't know much about what's coming to the Xbox in the months after launch, but I reckon whatever is is more important than those first few games.
Good post.
Not sure how much choice sony had in going with cds for playstation though, considering the nature of the original project with nintendo. Not without some vast restructuring.
New ways of thinking, and some fresh innovations seem pretty important though, when at any one time there have only been three companies producing consoles, and only every few years.
I think that for online gaming specifically, sony have, as i understand it, been having problems with their system in japan, and in europe there is relatively little broadband takeup, a problem for microsoft's broadband modem built into their console. America should be better for them though.
Unfortunately, nintendo's policy of keeping their options open, and not making any commitments until things are a little more predictable, looks to me to put them in the best position not to loose face and cash. Not a good precedent for pushing back the boundaries.
Not sure how much choice sony had in going with cds for playstation though, considering the nature of the original project with nintendo. Not without some vast restructuring.
New ways of thinking, and some fresh innovations seem pretty important though, when at any one time there have only been three companies producing consoles, and only every few years.
I think that for online gaming specifically, sony have, as i understand it, been having problems with their system in japan, and in europe there is relatively little broadband takeup, a problem for microsoft's broadband modem built into their console. America should be better for them though.
Unfortunately, nintendo's policy of keeping their options open, and not making any commitments until things are a little more predictable, looks to me to put them in the best position not to loose face and cash. Not a good precedent for pushing back the boundaries.
Nintendo probably won't go under, but if they did, we wouldn't lose out on their games any more than we lost out on Sega games by the dreamcast going down faster than a Sweedish prostitute.
Also, I seem to remember hearing that Nintendo are not giving any real attention to online gaming, as they still believe there is a lot they can do with non-internet games.
Is this more of less arrogant then their use of cartridges when others used CD's?
Will it cost them more or less of the market share than the previous blunder?
I want a GameCube, but Nintendo have got to stop being so damn ignorant....
Also, I seem to remember hearing that Nintendo are not giving any real attention to online gaming, as they still believe there is a lot they can do with non-internet games.
Is this more of less arrogant then their use of cartridges when others used CD's?
Will it cost them more or less of the market share than the previous blunder?
I want a GameCube, but Nintendo have got to stop being so damn ignorant....
I agree that there is enough room for all three consoles, you only have to look on here to see people divided over which console they are going to go for. All have their own pros and cons and it all comes down to personal choice.
A lot of people hate Microsoft for some reason or another (I have mine) but they know how to sell and market their products and they will probably continue to do it for this industry, just hope they don't try take over and run things like they do with operating systems market. Money is powerful and they may abuse their wealth too much.
A lot of people hate Microsoft for some reason or another (I have mine) but they know how to sell and market their products and they will probably continue to do it for this industry, just hope they don't try take over and run things like they do with operating systems market. Money is powerful and they may abuse their wealth too much.
Page: