The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Miserableman wrote:
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
>
> I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console
> ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a
> superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it.
Its arguably the shortest lived console in history as well.
As for the Sega software being superior obviously your are alone in that comment Sega is still losing money hand over fist because no-one wants there software, Jet set radio future flopped, Sega GT 2002 is hardly selling the Xbox by the bucket load. Where are the mighty Sega when it comes to the All formats chart nowhere is the answer, could it be the games were the problem all along.
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
>
> I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console
> ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a
> superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it.
Its arguably the shortest lived console in history as well.
As for the Sega software being superior obviously your are alone in that comment Sega is still losing money hand over fist because no-one wants there software, Jet set radio future flopped, Sega GT 2002 is hardly selling the Xbox by the bucket load. Where are the mighty Sega when it comes to the All formats chart nowhere is the answer, could it be the games were the problem all along.
Miserableman wrote:
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
>
> I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console
> ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a
> superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it.
> The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much.
If it was so good, why did we end up with PS2, GC, and XBox? If it was so good, we should all be using DC's right now.
Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
>
> I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console
> ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a
> superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it.
> The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much.
If it was so good, why did we end up with PS2, GC, and XBox? If it was so good, we should all be using DC's right now.
Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
Armatige Shanks wrote:
Its not, many people have dual boot systems....
Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
Its not, many people have dual boot systems....
Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
Update2.01 wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it. The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much.
> Strafex wrote:
> and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
>
> Did they?
I would say they did. The Dreamcast is arguably the finest console ever made, certainly the finest Sega ever made, and still has a superior game collection to any of the consoles that superceded it. The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much.
Strafex wrote:
and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
Did they?
and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
Did they?
I would say also at a guess that every Gamecube sold has more games sold for its life than the other consoles.
Also, my reply was longer Dan Uk. So I win. :P
Hehe, you raise very good points but sit on your fence smoking your middle man pipe. :)
Also, my reply was longer Dan Uk. So I win. :P
Hehe, you raise very good points but sit on your fence smoking your middle man pipe. :)
Just read through the entire debate...
You should all read through my "brand name wins it" topic in prime.
It's sort of relevant to this topic.
Anyways, to the point:
I don't want anyone to dominate the market.
Nintendo abused their power notoriously. This European price fixing is relatively new news, but they kept high prices for the Snes and early N64 games, the treated third parties like dirt (partly why so many of these third parties went rushing to Sony - Squaresoft is a prime example) and learnt the hard way.
If they didn't make some of the greatest games around, I expect a lot of people would resent them for it.
Sega brought a balance by competing during the 16bit days, but I have a feeling they made a mutual deal after that.
Sega would release the Saturn and own the market for 2 years before the "Ultra 64" would blow it away and own the market itself for a while, during which time they could charge whatever prices they felt like.
I'm actually glad Sony kicked them in the teeth.
After that, Nintendo changed completely, making their games cheaper and being more open to third parties, and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
Ofcourse, Sony's domination went too far when it killed the Dreamcast purely on the hype and brand name of it's new console and owned the market until the Gamecube and Xbox came out over a year later, hence Sony pretty much own the market for the minute.
If anyone owned the market, I'd rather it was Sony, after all, although they do get their way through marketing and business rather than creative game ideas, they don't do this half as aggressively as MS do.
And while Nintendo have that brilliant creative edge, last time they had power of the game market, they didn't exactly put the consumer's best interest at heart.
But what would be better than domination is competition.
Sony's dominance is a bit to strong for my liking at the moment. That's why a lot of Japanese game devellopers are focusing on their rivals to try and balance things a bit.
Although MS domination would be terrible for the industry, I don't see that happening. MS have their work cut out just trying to match Sony, let alone force them out of the industry.
MS Vs Sony is the sort of fight where we win.
MS launchs console for 300, Sony batters it down so MS cut it to 200.
Sony and Nintendo promptly follow with cuts of their own.
We get cheaper prices! Yey! :-)
MS have overhyped their console, but so did Sony.
Sony overhyped the emotion engine, showed off FMV as "technical footage" and forced Sega out of the hardware market in doing so.
The only bad thing about Sony and MS going into an all out marketing war is that they might drown out any other competitors caught in the crossfire - Nintendo, but I don't think we have anything to worry about there.
Nintendo have their own modest, but tightly cost efficient markting plan where they make a tidy profit out of relatively small sales.
While Sony and MS are sacrificing HUGE amounts of money for large profits in the long run, Nintendo are making a steady profit as they go, so they'll never make as much money as MS or Sony, but they'll never be in danger either.
MS entering the market is a good thing because it's keeping Sony on their toes. Also, MS are bringing some of their expertise with them. They have more experience with online gaming networks than most, and are making the most of this with Xbox live.
From what I've heard, it's an efficient, flawless skeleton, ready to have great games to be easily ran on it. Although you have to buy a router and broadband access, most people want that anyway...
You should all read through my "brand name wins it" topic in prime.
It's sort of relevant to this topic.
Anyways, to the point:
I don't want anyone to dominate the market.
Nintendo abused their power notoriously. This European price fixing is relatively new news, but they kept high prices for the Snes and early N64 games, the treated third parties like dirt (partly why so many of these third parties went rushing to Sony - Squaresoft is a prime example) and learnt the hard way.
If they didn't make some of the greatest games around, I expect a lot of people would resent them for it.
Sega brought a balance by competing during the 16bit days, but I have a feeling they made a mutual deal after that.
Sega would release the Saturn and own the market for 2 years before the "Ultra 64" would blow it away and own the market itself for a while, during which time they could charge whatever prices they felt like.
I'm actually glad Sony kicked them in the teeth.
After that, Nintendo changed completely, making their games cheaper and being more open to third parties, and Sega learnt from their Saturn mistakes and made the Dreamcast.
Ofcourse, Sony's domination went too far when it killed the Dreamcast purely on the hype and brand name of it's new console and owned the market until the Gamecube and Xbox came out over a year later, hence Sony pretty much own the market for the minute.
If anyone owned the market, I'd rather it was Sony, after all, although they do get their way through marketing and business rather than creative game ideas, they don't do this half as aggressively as MS do.
And while Nintendo have that brilliant creative edge, last time they had power of the game market, they didn't exactly put the consumer's best interest at heart.
But what would be better than domination is competition.
Sony's dominance is a bit to strong for my liking at the moment. That's why a lot of Japanese game devellopers are focusing on their rivals to try and balance things a bit.
Although MS domination would be terrible for the industry, I don't see that happening. MS have their work cut out just trying to match Sony, let alone force them out of the industry.
MS Vs Sony is the sort of fight where we win.
MS launchs console for 300, Sony batters it down so MS cut it to 200.
Sony and Nintendo promptly follow with cuts of their own.
We get cheaper prices! Yey! :-)
MS have overhyped their console, but so did Sony.
Sony overhyped the emotion engine, showed off FMV as "technical footage" and forced Sega out of the hardware market in doing so.
The only bad thing about Sony and MS going into an all out marketing war is that they might drown out any other competitors caught in the crossfire - Nintendo, but I don't think we have anything to worry about there.
Nintendo have their own modest, but tightly cost efficient markting plan where they make a tidy profit out of relatively small sales.
While Sony and MS are sacrificing HUGE amounts of money for large profits in the long run, Nintendo are making a steady profit as they go, so they'll never make as much money as MS or Sony, but they'll never be in danger either.
MS entering the market is a good thing because it's keeping Sony on their toes. Also, MS are bringing some of their expertise with them. They have more experience with online gaming networks than most, and are making the most of this with Xbox live.
From what I've heard, it's an efficient, flawless skeleton, ready to have great games to be easily ran on it. Although you have to buy a router and broadband access, most people want that anyway...
pb wrote:
> Linking To the Past wrote:
> This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we
> already know that microsoft is wrecking games.
>
> Please tell me you weren't serious there?
>
> Firstly, the point of the topic was that Microsoft wasn't monopolising
> the games market and using its marketing force to muscle all the
> competition out of the way, which has pretty much been discussed.
Yeah. Me and Rav put it out till the death. :-D
Also, as I explained earlier the way in which Halo was taken to Microsoft was a bit crappy, to say that least.
> Linking To the Past wrote:
> This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we
> already know that microsoft is wrecking games.
>
> Please tell me you weren't serious there?
>
> Firstly, the point of the topic was that Microsoft wasn't monopolising
> the games market and using its marketing force to muscle all the
> competition out of the way, which has pretty much been discussed.
Yeah. Me and Rav put it out till the death. :-D
Also, as I explained earlier the way in which Halo was taken to Microsoft was a bit crappy, to say that least.
Update2.01 wrote:
> It has everything to do with the IE scenario. If people want to run
> just Linux on a pc, why should it be difficult to override the windows
> installation? In time, we may see a day when even the applications
> have to run on various OS options - from the same disc (or set of
> discs), with no extra cost involved.
Its not, many people have dual boot systems....
You dont need to 'ovveride' Windows in order to install Linux, the are both OS's, the computer just wants to know which one to load
> It has everything to do with the IE scenario. If people want to run
> just Linux on a pc, why should it be difficult to override the windows
> installation? In time, we may see a day when even the applications
> have to run on various OS options - from the same disc (or set of
> discs), with no extra cost involved.
Its not, many people have dual boot systems....
You dont need to 'ovveride' Windows in order to install Linux, the are both OS's, the computer just wants to know which one to load
It got rubbish as soon as Update 2.01 arrived. It always does.
Page: