The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> The underlying point is this:
> Would you rather have Sony dominate the industy entirely, or have
> competition from MS.
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.
> The underlying point is this:
> Would you rather have Sony dominate the industy entirely, or have
> competition from MS.
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.
PsychoticKiller wrote:
> Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out.
> they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
Is this your little brother you've inadvertantly given your account details to typing?
> Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out.
> they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
Is this your little brother you've inadvertantly given your account details to typing?
PsychoticKiller wrote:
> Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out.
> they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
Pfff. They were too busy making up excuses as to why Windows wasn't actually any good.
> Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out.
> they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
Pfff. They were too busy making up excuses as to why Windows wasn't actually any good.
Er-no, all you have said in the reply below is that the Xbox is just like the PS2:
"It is a hybrid between a very standard PC, a very standard DVD player"
"It was promised to be revoltionary...We were promised a whole new gaming experience." (Remember the "emotional gaming" rubbish from Sony?)
The underlying point is this:
Would you rather have Sony dominate the industy entirely, or have competition from MS.
I'll go for the competition every time. The Xbox2 won't make any dent in Sony's Japanese domination, but may attack them in the West. I have no doubt that Sony will still have far higher sales, but the competition from MS will push up the amount of time devoted to the game.
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
"It is a hybrid between a very standard PC, a very standard DVD player"
"It was promised to be revoltionary...We were promised a whole new gaming experience." (Remember the "emotional gaming" rubbish from Sony?)
The underlying point is this:
Would you rather have Sony dominate the industy entirely, or have competition from MS.
I'll go for the competition every time. The Xbox2 won't make any dent in Sony's Japanese domination, but may attack them in the West. I have no doubt that Sony will still have far higher sales, but the competition from MS will push up the amount of time devoted to the game.
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
er-no wrote:
> Fantastic point there my Miserableman. :) Also, my manager said that
> it was not totally Nintendo's fault the prices for their games were so
> high. It was also the fact they were published and distributed by them
> across the world, and they didn't have a UK/Europe distribution base
> in the dying age of the N64.. although that doesn't excuse the price
> of the SNES games so I make no point whatsoever.
Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out. they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
> Fantastic point there my Miserableman. :) Also, my manager said that
> it was not totally Nintendo's fault the prices for their games were so
> high. It was also the fact they were published and distributed by them
> across the world, and they didn't have a UK/Europe distribution base
> in the dying age of the N64.. although that doesn't excuse the price
> of the SNES games so I make no point whatsoever.
Microsoft had really nothing to Do back when N64 and Snes Were Out. they were busy Doing upgrades for their Online broadband.
Miserableman wrote:
> Sony don't have such a fearsomely predative reputation as Microsoft.
> And although I don't like the PS2, Sonys domination of the industry is
> probably better for it than the equivalent domination by "lets
> see how much we can make these suckers pay for games" Nintendo,
> or "our plans for world domination are coming along
> swimmingly" Microsoft.
Fantastic point there my Miserableman. :) Also, my manager said that it was not totally Nintendo's fault the prices for their games were so high. It was also the fact they were published and distributed by them across the world, and they didn't have a UK/Europe distribution base in the dying age of the N64.. although that doesn't excuse the price of the SNES games so I make no point whatsoever.
:)
> Sony don't have such a fearsomely predative reputation as Microsoft.
> And although I don't like the PS2, Sonys domination of the industry is
> probably better for it than the equivalent domination by "lets
> see how much we can make these suckers pay for games" Nintendo,
> or "our plans for world domination are coming along
> swimmingly" Microsoft.
Fantastic point there my Miserableman. :) Also, my manager said that it was not totally Nintendo's fault the prices for their games were so high. It was also the fact they were published and distributed by them across the world, and they didn't have a UK/Europe distribution base in the dying age of the N64.. although that doesn't excuse the price of the SNES games so I make no point whatsoever.
:)
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Miserableman, I agree completely. However, Sony are also interested in
> the home entertainment market, and have put just as much into research
> of it as MS have. Both companies have the goal of "ruling the
> front room" through multifunctional set top boxes. Meanwhile
> Ninty have concentrated on games.
>
> The point is that we are a long way off the set top box becoming
> reality, and when it does you can expect people like Pace to get in on
> the act
Sony don't have such a fearsomely predative reputation as Microsoft. And although I don't like the PS2, Sonys domination of the industry is probably better for it than the equivalent domination by "lets see how much we can make these suckers pay for games" Nintendo, or "our plans for world domination are coming along swimmingly" Microsoft.
> Miserableman, I agree completely. However, Sony are also interested in
> the home entertainment market, and have put just as much into research
> of it as MS have. Both companies have the goal of "ruling the
> front room" through multifunctional set top boxes. Meanwhile
> Ninty have concentrated on games.
>
> The point is that we are a long way off the set top box becoming
> reality, and when it does you can expect people like Pace to get in on
> the act
Sony don't have such a fearsomely predative reputation as Microsoft. And although I don't like the PS2, Sonys domination of the industry is probably better for it than the equivalent domination by "lets see how much we can make these suckers pay for games" Nintendo, or "our plans for world domination are coming along swimmingly" Microsoft.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> "How many tabloids sell a day? 50million... how many actual
> decent broadsheets sell a day (with USEFUL information in), about
> 3million. "
>
> Actually, the Times and Telegraph are the biggest selling papers in
> the country. Tabloid sales are quite low in comparisson.
Ok, your talking mong now.
The Sun and The Mirror are the biggest selling papers every day. With The Sun recording average weekday sales of just over 50million. (Got the statistics on a handout I got in a lecture).
> "How many tabloids sell a day? 50million... how many actual
> decent broadsheets sell a day (with USEFUL information in), about
> 3million. "
>
> Actually, the Times and Telegraph are the biggest selling papers in
> the country. Tabloid sales are quite low in comparisson.
Ok, your talking mong now.
The Sun and The Mirror are the biggest selling papers every day. With The Sun recording average weekday sales of just over 50million. (Got the statistics on a handout I got in a lecture).
Thats true and as you know I don't support the PS2 as a console in anyway. I prefer to sit on it.
Whats wrong with the XBox as a console?
It was promised to be revoltionary. AS I have said. We as gamers were promised exclusive games. Which as I have said aren't. We were promised a whole new gaming experience.
Yeah.. One I can get on my PC.
The XBox is not a games console. It is a hybrid between a very standard PC, a very standard DVD player and a actually tiny harddrive.
It tried to evolve the hardware and not the games, thats why I dislike it. It tried ever so hard to be something its not, and thats a console. It doesn't play games. It merely plays ports. Whats all this crap about XBox Live?
Pffff. What crap. 'Lets take it futhur away from gaming, and promise the gamers an amazing online experience' - one that although we will try and make as good as we can, we can only offer it to you on a Broadband service, on top of that you will have to buy a router if you have anything buy blueyonder oh and we probably expect to get money from your credit card every few months when we go full service.
Their are many problems with the XBox.
Yet your topic is not about the XBox as a console, whether it be good or bad, your original post does as mine have done. We need to look to the past to predict the future, hence my arguements.
Whats wrong with the XBox as a console?
It was promised to be revoltionary. AS I have said. We as gamers were promised exclusive games. Which as I have said aren't. We were promised a whole new gaming experience.
Yeah.. One I can get on my PC.
The XBox is not a games console. It is a hybrid between a very standard PC, a very standard DVD player and a actually tiny harddrive.
It tried to evolve the hardware and not the games, thats why I dislike it. It tried ever so hard to be something its not, and thats a console. It doesn't play games. It merely plays ports. Whats all this crap about XBox Live?
Pffff. What crap. 'Lets take it futhur away from gaming, and promise the gamers an amazing online experience' - one that although we will try and make as good as we can, we can only offer it to you on a Broadband service, on top of that you will have to buy a router if you have anything buy blueyonder oh and we probably expect to get money from your credit card every few months when we go full service.
Their are many problems with the XBox.
Yet your topic is not about the XBox as a console, whether it be good or bad, your original post does as mine have done. We need to look to the past to predict the future, hence my arguements.
Hearing that from the Quizmaster just Plainly Scares me.
Page: