The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What's all the crap I hear about Microsoft trying to monopolise the gaming market. They're "buying all the other companies" and "using their money to get what they want"... aparantly. I beg to differ.
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
Page:
I don't ultimately reckon Microsoft will trash gaming in the conventional sense. Times change, and industries change with them. The strong will dominate, and all the consumers that raged about Sony walking into the market back in 94 are probably happily playing their PS2s every day. Sony were strong, and brought the force of change to the market. Whether it was ultimately good or bad, it was progress, and if they didn't do it someone else would have.
In Microsofts case, the whole of the entertainment is about to be overhauled due to the distribution power of internet (and the RIAA going apesh*t as a consequence). Microsoft are trying to impose that change on the videogames market. If they didn't do it, someone else would eventually.
In Microsofts case, the whole of the entertainment is about to be overhauled due to the distribution power of internet (and the RIAA going apesh*t as a consequence). Microsoft are trying to impose that change on the videogames market. If they didn't do it, someone else would eventually.
I've not seen Splinter Cell in action, and am not familiar enough with the power disparities between the PS2 and the Xbox, so I can't really comment. I can't imagine it just 'sliding' across though - the PS2 architecture was designed by Escher*, whereas the Xbox is quite straightforward internally.
*possibly completely untrue
*possibly completely untrue
I don't disagree that MS made a big hoo-har about how great they'd be... and then lost out to Nintendo...
However, returning to the topic, all these tales of MS coming into the market and wrecking it are just rubbish. So far they have made very little impression in their unit sales.
The fact is that Sony and MS are now competing for the same market, and, however much money MS put into advertising and buying companies, they will not have a monopoly in the market for many, many years.
Most of the points made against the Xbox are aimed at Microsoft's aweful PC market habits, and not the games market expolits that they are doing a reasonable job on.
Oh, and er-no, what's the complete rubbish about Rare crumbling under MS. Rare chose MS as their business partners and have proclaimed that they are getting great support.
However, returning to the topic, all these tales of MS coming into the market and wrecking it are just rubbish. So far they have made very little impression in their unit sales.
The fact is that Sony and MS are now competing for the same market, and, however much money MS put into advertising and buying companies, they will not have a monopoly in the market for many, many years.
Most of the points made against the Xbox are aimed at Microsoft's aweful PC market habits, and not the games market expolits that they are doing a reasonable job on.
Oh, and er-no, what's the complete rubbish about Rare crumbling under MS. Rare chose MS as their business partners and have proclaimed that they are getting great support.
Miserableman wrote:
>
> If you can release GTA3 on the Gameboy you can release Splinter Cell
> on the PS2 :O))
Touche. However that was a completely differnet and revised game for a completely diffent engine. :P Splinter Cell will apparently run fine on the PS2. That is what is making me doubt a lot. Also, most of the ports are coded on the Gamecube (asked a Eidos lady worker) and then ported. Thats why the rumours that multiports run best on the GC (like TimeS2) are true.
Funnknneee.
>
> If you can release GTA3 on the Gameboy you can release Splinter Cell
> on the PS2 :O))
Touche. However that was a completely differnet and revised game for a completely diffent engine. :P Splinter Cell will apparently run fine on the PS2. That is what is making me doubt a lot. Also, most of the ports are coded on the Gamecube (asked a Eidos lady worker) and then ported. Thats why the rumours that multiports run best on the GC (like TimeS2) are true.
Funnknneee.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
(Remember the "emotional
> gaming" rubbish from Sony?)
>
Yeah, I remember the emotional gaming crap from Sony. However haven't they in some aspects fulfilled what they said they would do? Silent Hill 2 was quite creepy, and the emotion chip was basically saying 'we can make characters look as if they have emotion'. If you grab a couple of the PS2 games, you will see eyebrows moving, eyes blinking and more than 'mouth open, mouth closed' with the mouth.
Just saying, at least it was a promise that they did try and fulfill. Microsoft on the other hand thing revolotionary gaming is marching around buying rights to games with a saucepan on its head while banging it with a wooden spoon sreaming, 'WE ARE THE BEST... LA LA LA RELOVOTIONARY.. LA LA'.
(Remember the "emotional
> gaming" rubbish from Sony?)
>
Yeah, I remember the emotional gaming crap from Sony. However haven't they in some aspects fulfilled what they said they would do? Silent Hill 2 was quite creepy, and the emotion chip was basically saying 'we can make characters look as if they have emotion'. If you grab a couple of the PS2 games, you will see eyebrows moving, eyes blinking and more than 'mouth open, mouth closed' with the mouth.
Just saying, at least it was a promise that they did try and fulfill. Microsoft on the other hand thing revolotionary gaming is marching around buying rights to games with a saucepan on its head while banging it with a wooden spoon sreaming, 'WE ARE THE BEST... LA LA LA RELOVOTIONARY.. LA LA'.
er-no wrote:
> Also? Whats with the PS2 EVEN being able to handle Spintler Cell. I
> thought the XBox was super-fab-super powerful.
>
> No matter how mocked down the game goes. It still shouldn't be able to
> run on the PS2.
If you can release GTA3 on the Gameboy you can release Splinter Cell on the PS2 :O))
> Also? Whats with the PS2 EVEN being able to handle Spintler Cell. I
> thought the XBox was super-fab-super powerful.
>
> No matter how mocked down the game goes. It still shouldn't be able to
> run on the PS2.
If you can release GTA3 on the Gameboy you can release Splinter Cell on the PS2 :O))
er-no wrote:
> Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they
> will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games
> every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something
> stupid. Thats a classic example.
What are the chances that a rushed rare game will need to have patches downloaded for it to resolve any bugs? Hopefully we won't be seeing that kind of problem.
> Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they
> will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games
> every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something
> stupid. Thats a classic example.
What are the chances that a rushed rare game will need to have patches downloaded for it to resolve any bugs? Hopefully we won't be seeing that kind of problem.
er-no wrote:
> Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they
> will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games
> every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something
> stupid. Thats a classic example.
tbh, I think Rare are crumbling anyway. The Timesplitters team leaving raised a few questions, which appear to have been answered by recent games and buyouts.
The only Rare game I ever really liked was Diddy Kong Racing anyway :O[
> Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they
> will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games
> every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something
> stupid. Thats a classic example.
tbh, I think Rare are crumbling anyway. The Timesplitters team leaving raised a few questions, which appear to have been answered by recent games and buyouts.
The only Rare game I ever really liked was Diddy Kong Racing anyway :O[
Miserableman wrote:
> I would rather it was just Sony and Nintendo. They would keep each
> other more honest - I reckon those that bought an Xbox in this
> universe would have gone for a GameCube had the Xbox never existed,
> making it (a bit) more even between Sony and Nintendo.
Very.. Very true.
And also with the Gamecube being a newer console. It would have been even more 50/50. Games like Halo would have a rightful release on Mac and PC. Splinter Cell would have been released on both consoles.
Also? Whats with the PS2 EVEN being able to handle Spintler Cell. I thought the XBox was super-fab-super powerful.
No matter how mocked down the game goes. It still shouldn't be able to run on the PS2.
I really do wonder how Microsoft will try and bump up sales once this deal starts to wain after Xmas and Splinter Cell gets the multi.
It shall be fun to watch.
> I would rather it was just Sony and Nintendo. They would keep each
> other more honest - I reckon those that bought an Xbox in this
> universe would have gone for a GameCube had the Xbox never existed,
> making it (a bit) more even between Sony and Nintendo.
Very.. Very true.
And also with the Gamecube being a newer console. It would have been even more 50/50. Games like Halo would have a rightful release on Mac and PC. Splinter Cell would have been released on both consoles.
Also? Whats with the PS2 EVEN being able to handle Spintler Cell. I thought the XBox was super-fab-super powerful.
No matter how mocked down the game goes. It still shouldn't be able to run on the PS2.
I really do wonder how Microsoft will try and bump up sales once this deal starts to wain after Xmas and Splinter Cell gets the multi.
It shall be fun to watch.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Had MS not entered the market, Sony would have complete domination of
> the market at the moment (bar the sliver that Ninty gets), and would
> go on to dominate the home market with set top boxes.
>
> Sonic
I don't think thats true. And also, as I have said before but you probably ignored.. Sony and Microsoft are completely differnet companies with completely different structures.
Nintendo have a bloody large portion of the cake as well Sonic. Don't forget that the GameCube has still in total sales outsold the XBox. I would prefer a Sony dominated market, than one where Microsoft predictably threaten to buy out every company that poses a threat.
Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something stupid. Thats a classic example.
No matter how much money they pump in, I don't think Microsoft every really think things through.
> Had MS not entered the market, Sony would have complete domination of
> the market at the moment (bar the sliver that Ninty gets), and would
> go on to dominate the home market with set top boxes.
>
> Sonic
I don't think thats true. And also, as I have said before but you probably ignored.. Sony and Microsoft are completely differnet companies with completely different structures.
Nintendo have a bloody large portion of the cake as well Sonic. Don't forget that the GameCube has still in total sales outsold the XBox. I would prefer a Sony dominated market, than one where Microsoft predictably threaten to buy out every company that poses a threat.
Also, will Rare crumble under the ownership of Microsoft? I think they will. It was a very independent company releasing a couple of games every few years. Microsoft want a few within a year or something stupid. Thats a classic example.
No matter how much money they pump in, I don't think Microsoft every really think things through.
Page: