Viewing Thread:
"Xbox2 will come before PS3!!!!!"

Microsoft has decided to release their new green box of crap(opps did I say that) before the release of the PS3 that will come out around 2005. I think one of the main reasons is that little Billy wasn't to happy about the fact that the Xbox scratches the disc when you put them inside.

The Xbox2 will have a little more advanced graphics in it but the early bird doesn't necessarly get the worm. Do you think the Xbox2 will have the same downfall as the Dreamcast because Sega released their system too early even though it was far superior than the N64 and the Playstation? We will just have to wait and see I guess.

I just think people shouldn't have aggro against the Xbox just because it's made by Microsoft. I mean, that's the only reason people are arguing, is because of who it's made by. If it was made by Sony, the situation would be entirely different.

I'll get one if the games are good. But if not, then it can fudge off.

Tóm wrote:
> I just wish people would get off microsoft's back over such a small
> problem blown way out of proportion.

I agree. Haven't had any problems with discs in mine.

VenomByte wrote:
> Simply not true. The XBox is capable of far, far more than the PS2
> is.

You don't want to listen to all those tech specs. They're really comparing apples with bananas.

Just go by what your eyes tell you.

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The "large amount" was actually around 5% of machines, which
> - it turns out - is no different to any other electronics hardware. I
> believe Watchdog were forced to concede this point in a later
> programme.

Heh, ok. Fair enough, I only watched that one program :-)


However, I found this site:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1129691

Not saying any of this information is true as I'm relying on this site, and I'm now talking about the Xbox. But Microsoft shipped 125,000 Xboxes to Japan (I know this is shipping, not sales figures, but I couldn't find sales figures). They recieved 243 calls about xbox disk scratching in the same time period.

So this makes approximatly 0.19% of xboxs affected/reported.

I know that those were shipping figures, and not neccessarily sales figures. However, there is a lot of room for error there.

I just wish people would get off microsoft's back over such a small problem blown way out of proportion.

½pint wrote:
> Plus, the reason there isn't too much of a difference between high-end
> PS2 games (MGS2, FF10, Burnout2) and GC/Xbox games, is because those
> consoles are yet to have consoles which fully utilise their powers.

Nor has PS2!

½pint wrote:
> This is why the PS2 can't render graphics as well as the GC or Xbox

That and about two years of graphical developments and price reductions!


> The Xbox version had to be scaled down for
> the PS2, simply because the PS2 couldn't handle all the graphical
> effects.

I wouldn't call the includion of extra levels and vehicles 'scaling down'.

But from what I've read, the PS2 version is dire, granted. But then we don't know what a better developer would have done with it. Granted it wouldn't have looked like the Xbox version, but it could certainly have been better than it is.

But that said, Wreckless on Xbox was little more than a tech demo anyway. There's so little gameplay involved that they could afford to squeeze more into the graphics.

The Xbox certainly wins graphically, but with a two year advantage in technology, if it didn't, you'd wonder why. Graphics and the extra memory are the main areas giving an advantage; I don't really see the CPU speed as having much of a say in it, due to the nature of the beast.

Plus, the reason there isn't too much of a difference between high-end PS2 games (MGS2, FF10, Burnout2) and GC/Xbox games, is because those consoles are yet to have consoles which fully utilise their powers. There are a few examples which really use the Xbox to good capacity (Wreckless, Halo (doesn't drop a jot in intense firefights), Sega GT 2002 - GC - StarFox, Rogue Leader, parts of Wave Race). I tell you, next year or the year after, will determine the true differences between the capabilities of various consoles - mark my words.

Ok, lets say this: The GameCube doesn't have as high specifications as the Xbox in terms of processing speed and memory, but the graphics chip is far superior which is why the quality of graphics on the two systems are of relatively similar standards. This is because the Xbox doesn't use the processing/memory just for processing and remembering stuff, but also for rendering effects (particle effects and lighting have a BIG draw on power). This is what brings the Xbox down to a more realistic standard. However, the PS2 is similar to the Xbox in this respect, in that it's graphics chip doesn't have a load of in built, easy to program functions. This is why the PS2 can't render graphics as well as the GC or Xbox - look at Wreckless for a simple, easy to follow example. The Xbox version had to be scaled down for the PS2, simply because the PS2 couldn't handle all the graphical effects. Well it could, but it would have run at about 2 frames a second.

Tóm wrote:
> Drunk Cow wrote:
> Why? Because it's good or because it deals with news.
>
> Because it's to a much lower standard than I normally expect from
> you.
>
> In all honesty, it's a load of rubbish.

Poo!


"HIDES UNDER CAT"