The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A few concerns about Microsoft's coming X-Box console:
[1] A big knock against all next-gen consoles, now that they have the graphics horse power
to matter, is that TV screens are relatively low-resolution monitors that cannot deliver the
clean, detailed images of a PC monitor. Until HDTV is wide spread, this gives a BIG advantage
to PCs.
[2] Typically, in a given major market, only the top two brands will be highly successful, and
I think everyone has good reason to believe Sony is a lock as one of those two. Nintendo or
Sega both have a very strong chance at being the other one, since both of those companies
are solely focused on the gaming market and that gives them many business and marketing
advantages. Nintendo, ESPECIALLY, seems like a sure-thing because of their very strong
gaming brands, like Zelda, Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, and Pokémon. And even the PC itself
must be considered a formidable game platform.
[3] It's just not convenient or easy to use a mouse in front of a TV, so that's a big-time PC,
and an advantage that makes games that are best played on PCs (FPS and RTS games,
among others), often too hard to play on the X-Box as with the other consoles.
[4] If Microsoft believes that anyone will want to use the Internet and do their email, etc. on
a TV-based console system, they will been proven wrong. I just don't see people putting up
with that kind of hassle, and reading text on fuzzy TVs, and doing anything on the X-Box that
is far better suited to a PC. Maybe when a desk in front of TV screens become standard
equipment, then consoles will have a prayer at becoming more than just a game machine.
[5] I foresee that the majority of X-Box games will be enhanced ports of PC games. This will
be a serious problem for the X-Box's identity, because I don't see many developers making
original content and brands for it--the majority of developers will still make games for the PC
and then choose to port them to the X-Box. I predict most developers who develop games
for the PC will simply say, "Hey, let's do an X-Box version, too!"
[6] It's hard to imagine that any hardcore PC game players will buy the X-Box. People with
PCs will stick with PCs because PCs are by far the better game playing machine (assuming the
PC has a generally equal CPU and 3D graphics card, and PCs for sale when the X-Box comes
out should easily exceed the X-Box's CPU power, and be close to equal with the 3D graphics
card), because they easily support the mouse (you're setting at a desk!), and the monitor is
capable of displaying text that's readable in something wider than a 50 column mode! Also,
the PC has many other applications, and it has a keyboard (imagine trying to play a FPS
without a mouse and a keyboard--and think about all those keyboard shortcut keys for so
many other games), making it the best all-in-one solution for most people. Quite simply, few
people with a PC, I think, will switch to the X-Box to play games when it's easier to stay put
on the PC. Sure, some people with older PCs may buy an X-Box to play high-end PC games,
but I think that's a small percentage of us. Overall, stripped down PCs that are reduced to
game machines doesn't seem like a winning idea, because a PC is so much better, and PC
prices are becoming much less a barrier for people who might otherwise buy a console
machine.
In addition to these six points, I'll address a few comments I've seen in the press. David
Cage, CEO of Quantic Dream, is quoted as saying in the current issue of NextGen: "[The] PC
is probably condemned to disappear [as a game machine]...The reason is simple, you need to
pay about five to ten times more to have a good PC than a console." The fallacy with this
comment is that people buy PCs to do more than play games, and they buy them for the
complete package of things that can be done with them. Quite simply, PCs will never be
replaced by consoles as the preferred device to use the Internet and run other non-game
applications--and even many game genres are better suited to PCs than consoles.
Rob Dyer, a V.P. with Eidos, says in the same article: "I'm going way out on a limb, but I
think the PC is going to cease to be any kind of viable platform within the next 18 to 24
months. It's going to be completely supplanted by Microsoft's X-Box or whatever else." You
have to admire a bold claim like this, but it just isn't going to happen. PCs, due to their wide
utility, will always be around, and always be a solid platform for game developers. The X-Box
will not replace the PC as a game platform, no way.
The X-Box will have near impossible time competing against the PC, PS2 and Dolphin. And all
four cannot succeed, the market cannot support this many successful game platforms.
Microsoft of course has big money, so many people think that's an automatic win, but big
money doesn't mean success, otherwise companies like Gateway, Dell and Compaq would
have never had incredible success against IBM in the PC market. Influence and positioning are
more important than money, and Sony and Nintendo both have far better positioning
(Microsoft really isn't known as a game company by the general public), and both Sony and
Nintendo have strong influence, too, probably better than Microsoft in the game channels.
The things that the X-Box will have in its favor, such as being a fixed and stable hardware
platform, and a low price compared to PCs, may not be enough to overtake the other top
consoles and the PC itself. Strange as it may seem, the X-Box might have a better chance of
being successful, IF it was not so much like the PC, inviting mostly PC ports rather than
entirely original projects and brands.
[1] A big knock against all next-gen consoles, now that they have the graphics horse power
to matter, is that TV screens are relatively low-resolution monitors that cannot deliver the
clean, detailed images of a PC monitor. Until HDTV is wide spread, this gives a BIG advantage
to PCs.
[2] Typically, in a given major market, only the top two brands will be highly successful, and
I think everyone has good reason to believe Sony is a lock as one of those two. Nintendo or
Sega both have a very strong chance at being the other one, since both of those companies
are solely focused on the gaming market and that gives them many business and marketing
advantages. Nintendo, ESPECIALLY, seems like a sure-thing because of their very strong
gaming brands, like Zelda, Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, and Pokémon. And even the PC itself
must be considered a formidable game platform.
[3] It's just not convenient or easy to use a mouse in front of a TV, so that's a big-time PC,
and an advantage that makes games that are best played on PCs (FPS and RTS games,
among others), often too hard to play on the X-Box as with the other consoles.
[4] If Microsoft believes that anyone will want to use the Internet and do their email, etc. on
a TV-based console system, they will been proven wrong. I just don't see people putting up
with that kind of hassle, and reading text on fuzzy TVs, and doing anything on the X-Box that
is far better suited to a PC. Maybe when a desk in front of TV screens become standard
equipment, then consoles will have a prayer at becoming more than just a game machine.
[5] I foresee that the majority of X-Box games will be enhanced ports of PC games. This will
be a serious problem for the X-Box's identity, because I don't see many developers making
original content and brands for it--the majority of developers will still make games for the PC
and then choose to port them to the X-Box. I predict most developers who develop games
for the PC will simply say, "Hey, let's do an X-Box version, too!"
[6] It's hard to imagine that any hardcore PC game players will buy the X-Box. People with
PCs will stick with PCs because PCs are by far the better game playing machine (assuming the
PC has a generally equal CPU and 3D graphics card, and PCs for sale when the X-Box comes
out should easily exceed the X-Box's CPU power, and be close to equal with the 3D graphics
card), because they easily support the mouse (you're setting at a desk!), and the monitor is
capable of displaying text that's readable in something wider than a 50 column mode! Also,
the PC has many other applications, and it has a keyboard (imagine trying to play a FPS
without a mouse and a keyboard--and think about all those keyboard shortcut keys for so
many other games), making it the best all-in-one solution for most people. Quite simply, few
people with a PC, I think, will switch to the X-Box to play games when it's easier to stay put
on the PC. Sure, some people with older PCs may buy an X-Box to play high-end PC games,
but I think that's a small percentage of us. Overall, stripped down PCs that are reduced to
game machines doesn't seem like a winning idea, because a PC is so much better, and PC
prices are becoming much less a barrier for people who might otherwise buy a console
machine.
In addition to these six points, I'll address a few comments I've seen in the press. David
Cage, CEO of Quantic Dream, is quoted as saying in the current issue of NextGen: "[The] PC
is probably condemned to disappear [as a game machine]...The reason is simple, you need to
pay about five to ten times more to have a good PC than a console." The fallacy with this
comment is that people buy PCs to do more than play games, and they buy them for the
complete package of things that can be done with them. Quite simply, PCs will never be
replaced by consoles as the preferred device to use the Internet and run other non-game
applications--and even many game genres are better suited to PCs than consoles.
Rob Dyer, a V.P. with Eidos, says in the same article: "I'm going way out on a limb, but I
think the PC is going to cease to be any kind of viable platform within the next 18 to 24
months. It's going to be completely supplanted by Microsoft's X-Box or whatever else." You
have to admire a bold claim like this, but it just isn't going to happen. PCs, due to their wide
utility, will always be around, and always be a solid platform for game developers. The X-Box
will not replace the PC as a game platform, no way.
The X-Box will have near impossible time competing against the PC, PS2 and Dolphin. And all
four cannot succeed, the market cannot support this many successful game platforms.
Microsoft of course has big money, so many people think that's an automatic win, but big
money doesn't mean success, otherwise companies like Gateway, Dell and Compaq would
have never had incredible success against IBM in the PC market. Influence and positioning are
more important than money, and Sony and Nintendo both have far better positioning
(Microsoft really isn't known as a game company by the general public), and both Sony and
Nintendo have strong influence, too, probably better than Microsoft in the game channels.
The things that the X-Box will have in its favor, such as being a fixed and stable hardware
platform, and a low price compared to PCs, may not be enough to overtake the other top
consoles and the PC itself. Strange as it may seem, the X-Box might have a better chance of
being successful, IF it was not so much like the PC, inviting mostly PC ports rather than
entirely original projects and brands.
Page:
Or perhaps we have an American in our forums.
There was an Austrailian in the Gamecube forum once. Only posted one message though.
There was an Austrailian in the Gamecube forum once. Only posted one message though.
Pounds you mean, it's not like we're ruled by those Americans...
I can't believe i read all this. (actually truth is i didnt) Anyway the equivalent PC will set you back thousands of dollars, and i'm predicting both Sony and X-Box will match the price of the Gamecube when it's finally released. The war is on and the true victors will be the gaming public. lucky 4 us >;)
Good god! A female gamer!
(Excuse his shock, but we've been waiting for one for a very long time...)
I think you're the first woman on here...
(Excuse his shock, but we've been waiting for one for a very long time...)
I think you're the first woman on here...
(Then why did you ask?)
Perhaps HIS brain has started speaking to him...
Perhaps HIS brain has started speaking to him...
Page: