The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The future of gaming will be determined by the most successful games machines and this will depend on three things: the console/computer manufacturers, the software houses/publishers and the buying public. Each of these is influenced by the other two.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer, how much are they prepared to pump into advertising and will they be able to make a profit at the end of it all.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony or Microsoft. There will also be people who will NOT buy a particular brand of machine, be it through principle (perhaps Microsoft) or from bad experiences with previous machines (perhaps Sega). There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before, to buy their machine instead of their rivals'.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. In fact, this hope seems to have been realised in Japan already. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
So, to sum up, a games machine is more likely to be successful if it is powerful, easy to develop for, has a lot of third-party support, has extra non-datable features, has an excellent marketing campaign and is made by a company who hasn't screwed up in recent history. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which, if any, of the latest generation of games machines, satisfy these requirements.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer, how much are they prepared to pump into advertising and will they be able to make a profit at the end of it all.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony or Microsoft. There will also be people who will NOT buy a particular brand of machine, be it through principle (perhaps Microsoft) or from bad experiences with previous machines (perhaps Sega). There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before, to buy their machine instead of their rivals'.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. In fact, this hope seems to have been realised in Japan already. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
So, to sum up, a games machine is more likely to be successful if it is powerful, easy to develop for, has a lot of third-party support, has extra non-datable features, has an excellent marketing campaign and is made by a company who hasn't screwed up in recent history. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which, if any, of the latest generation of games machines, satisfy these requirements.
There is one thing that has always bugged me about P.C's....the games....sorry I don't mean the games themselves , I mean the fact that you might go out and get
a beautiful game with the crispiest of crisp graphics,
but then when you try to load it,it doesn't work and then you have to spend time adjusting sound and graphics.
Sure most games do work but there are always the ones which will just fail on you. Where as on a games console e.g. N64, you can just plug in and play.
(and yes I do know it's not just P.C. games that fail)
but my point is you're more likely to get a working N64
or Playstation game than a P.C. one.
Oh and to shesssss......ugh...whatever your name is
MGS kicks supreme a**
a beautiful game with the crispiest of crisp graphics,
but then when you try to load it,it doesn't work and then you have to spend time adjusting sound and graphics.
Sure most games do work but there are always the ones which will just fail on you. Where as on a games console e.g. N64, you can just plug in and play.
(and yes I do know it's not just P.C. games that fail)
but my point is you're more likely to get a working N64
or Playstation game than a P.C. one.
Oh and to shesssss......ugh...whatever your name is
MGS kicks supreme a**
some people are so sentimental
Do we really need a replacement for our little PS1 yet? It has become like one of the family, so dear in all owners hearts and what will become of the little grey box of tricks? In years to come it will be 'retro games machine of retro gaming' but in the immediate future what will happen to this little gaming wonder? Will the PS end up in gaming heaven with the heavyweights it blitzed, like the SNES and Mega Drive, or is destined to console hell with the Jaguar and that thing Amstrad had out? Even worse will it become the possession of your little brother or siser and end up being thrown about the bedroom?
I think people will be disappointed in the PS2 as it won't have the wow factor that the PS1 did and it looks so much different, with no grey in sight or any big reassuring buttons. Remember how you felt when you opened the packaging and heard that 'whoosh' sound as it jumped into life? It could play CD's, give you oh so cool visuals when you slipped in your last Barry White CD and what can you say about T-REX! PS1 was so much better than anything seen before- fantastic graphics and great gameplay.
People expect fantastic graphics because essentially that's all it's going to bring to the gaming world, as reviews of Tekken Tag or Gran Turismo 2000 may look out of this world, but how much better will the gameplay actually be in their little brother, the PS1? How many of you are truly unhappy with the PS1? Would you be unhappy if it stayed around another 5 years? Look at the difference between Tekken and Tekken 3 or Ridge Racer to Ridge Racer type 4. The PS has plenty more up its sleeves.
PS2 is trying too hard to be a multimedia machine that is capable of doing everything you require and maybe dreamed of, but essentially it should be a games machine and this may be lost in the rush to be number one. DVD, DTS and internet capabilities - don't get me wrong, these are all great ideas, but I think gaming will be lost with all these innovations on. People will buy PS2 as a DVD/games console or as a facility to search the world wide web.
I think people will be disappointed in the PS2 as it won't have the wow factor that the PS1 did and it looks so much different, with no grey in sight or any big reassuring buttons. Remember how you felt when you opened the packaging and heard that 'whoosh' sound as it jumped into life? It could play CD's, give you oh so cool visuals when you slipped in your last Barry White CD and what can you say about T-REX! PS1 was so much better than anything seen before- fantastic graphics and great gameplay.
People expect fantastic graphics because essentially that's all it's going to bring to the gaming world, as reviews of Tekken Tag or Gran Turismo 2000 may look out of this world, but how much better will the gameplay actually be in their little brother, the PS1? How many of you are truly unhappy with the PS1? Would you be unhappy if it stayed around another 5 years? Look at the difference between Tekken and Tekken 3 or Ridge Racer to Ridge Racer type 4. The PS has plenty more up its sleeves.
PS2 is trying too hard to be a multimedia machine that is capable of doing everything you require and maybe dreamed of, but essentially it should be a games machine and this may be lost in the rush to be number one. DVD, DTS and internet capabilities - don't get me wrong, these are all great ideas, but I think gaming will be lost with all these innovations on. People will buy PS2 as a DVD/games console or as a facility to search the world wide web.
Sorry about being so crude but it is the only way I could think that could prove my point.
You could sell a lump of t**d with the right advertising, people can sell anything and you can take courses now, to improve your selling skills, if it appeals or makes the target audience laugh then it's sold.
And evidence to back my example up: My hanky from South Park had it's own doll and other stuff which sold, lump of t**d can be sold.
And to make sure I didn't loose the plot completly, Sony had no experience of making consoles and have had lots of problems which would normally set their profits back, but they advertise all over the place, you can't tell me of a premier league team that hasn't got playstation banners on their football ground! they have their own skate park, it's very good, but they have the money to spend on it, their consoles aren't all that good. I think i'll leave that unfinsihed, because something bad happened and i'm a bit miffed.
You could sell a lump of t**d with the right advertising, people can sell anything and you can take courses now, to improve your selling skills, if it appeals or makes the target audience laugh then it's sold.
And evidence to back my example up: My hanky from South Park had it's own doll and other stuff which sold, lump of t**d can be sold.
And to make sure I didn't loose the plot completly, Sony had no experience of making consoles and have had lots of problems which would normally set their profits back, but they advertise all over the place, you can't tell me of a premier league team that hasn't got playstation banners on their football ground! they have their own skate park, it's very good, but they have the money to spend on it, their consoles aren't all that good. I think i'll leave that unfinsihed, because something bad happened and i'm a bit miffed.
The future of gaming will be determined by the most successful games machines and this will depend on three things: the console/computer manufacturers, the software houses/publishers and the buying public. Each of these is influenced by the other two.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer, how much are they prepared to pump into advertising and will they be able to make a profit at the end of it all.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony or Microsoft. There will also be people who will NOT buy a particular brand of machine, be it through principle (perhaps Microsoft) or from bad experiences with previous machines (perhaps Sega). There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before, to buy their machine instead of their rivals'.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. In fact, this hope seems to have been realised in Japan already. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
So, to sum up, a games machine is more likely to be successful if it is powerful, easy to develop for, has a lot of third-party support, has extra non-datable features, has an excellent marketing campaign and is made by a company who hasn't screwed up in recent history. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which, if any, of the latest generation of games machines, satisfy these requirements.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer, how much are they prepared to pump into advertising and will they be able to make a profit at the end of it all.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony or Microsoft. There will also be people who will NOT buy a particular brand of machine, be it through principle (perhaps Microsoft) or from bad experiences with previous machines (perhaps Sega). There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before, to buy their machine instead of their rivals'.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. In fact, this hope seems to have been realised in Japan already. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
So, to sum up, a games machine is more likely to be successful if it is powerful, easy to develop for, has a lot of third-party support, has extra non-datable features, has an excellent marketing campaign and is made by a company who hasn't screwed up in recent history. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which, if any, of the latest generation of games machines, satisfy these requirements.