The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
With the PS2 so dominant, and still shifting in big numbers, have the XBox & GC lost all chance of catching PS2. The fight for xBox and GC is now about survival. Can they survive with the number of units they are shifting? Most people have already bought a PS2. The remainder have 3 machines to choose from, but the number of games for PS2 looks to be the most important issue.
Page:
Yes, funkygamer is right. Like Sky TV being the defacto standard for digital tv with all the best content and best + most press. Sony is in a similar position with it's PS2. Any company that wan't to move loads of games must produce at least a copy of it's game for PS2
Boz wrote:
> the thing is PS2 is only doing well because it was released 2 years b4
> the other 2 meaning ppl brought it so they could have the next
> generation console to show off with.
That is true, but the fact remains that this was a winning tactic from Sony. "First to market" usually means having an advantage, OK, Sony has been battered over the "Emotion Engine" in the specialist press, but mainstream media still love the PS2.
> also they have a problem now because new games are being developed but
> if they are made first on xbox or GC then a PS2 version will never be
> released and if it is it will have lost many of the extras.
Que? Did you totally miss my point about developers choosing the PS2 to develop on simply because of the dominance it has in the marketplace? It doesn't matter if the XBox or GC is technically superior, that is a side issue at the moment, the PS2 has the superior numbers, and it has the mainstream press behind it. Noticably, the Xbox has a lot of column inches dedicated to it in the financial pages of newspapers, but not so much the "gaming" pages.
It would take a brave developer NOT to build a game for the PS2 with the significant advantages that it has over the other contenders in the marketplace.
> the thing is PS2 is only doing well because it was released 2 years b4
> the other 2 meaning ppl brought it so they could have the next
> generation console to show off with.
That is true, but the fact remains that this was a winning tactic from Sony. "First to market" usually means having an advantage, OK, Sony has been battered over the "Emotion Engine" in the specialist press, but mainstream media still love the PS2.
> also they have a problem now because new games are being developed but
> if they are made first on xbox or GC then a PS2 version will never be
> released and if it is it will have lost many of the extras.
Que? Did you totally miss my point about developers choosing the PS2 to develop on simply because of the dominance it has in the marketplace? It doesn't matter if the XBox or GC is technically superior, that is a side issue at the moment, the PS2 has the superior numbers, and it has the mainstream press behind it. Noticably, the Xbox has a lot of column inches dedicated to it in the financial pages of newspapers, but not so much the "gaming" pages.
It would take a brave developer NOT to build a game for the PS2 with the significant advantages that it has over the other contenders in the marketplace.
Mr. Happy wrote:
> Right this is the last thing I'm saying in this thread because I'm
> being misinterpretted left, right and centre.
I think this whole thread is one big misinterpretation! :-)
I think the subject of the thread was badly worded, as clearly neither Xbox or Gamecube (or Microsoft or Nintendo) are fighting to 'survive'.
Xbox and Gamecube are fighting, but not for survival; they're fighting for 2nd place in the market at the moment. But in the event that either machine 'fails', it certainly won't mean the end of the parent companies.
> Right this is the last thing I'm saying in this thread because I'm
> being misinterpretted left, right and centre.
I think this whole thread is one big misinterpretation! :-)
I think the subject of the thread was badly worded, as clearly neither Xbox or Gamecube (or Microsoft or Nintendo) are fighting to 'survive'.
Xbox and Gamecube are fighting, but not for survival; they're fighting for 2nd place in the market at the moment. But in the event that either machine 'fails', it certainly won't mean the end of the parent companies.
the thing is PS2 is only doing well because it was released 2 years b4 the other 2 meaning ppl brought it so they could have the next generation console to show off with.
also they have a problem now because new games are being developed but if they are made first on xbox or GC then a PS2 version will never be released and if it is it will have lost many of the extras.
and another thing i found that N64 games where more "solid" when the PS1 games felt rushed and cheap hard to explain but i beleive the same has happened with ps2 but it still sells well because they managed to get the "cool" tag so 15-30 year olds will buy them.
one last thought with Sony 2 years ahead of the rest it means they will be first to make a new console and there problem will be making the extra leap to attract games players and they might just fail leaving them with a crumy console as microsoft and nintendo come and pick up the peices using the same ideas as sony only making them better.
Dont get me wrong i love SOME games on all 3 consoles but i love more games on the GC than on PS2 and XBOX.
also they have a problem now because new games are being developed but if they are made first on xbox or GC then a PS2 version will never be released and if it is it will have lost many of the extras.
and another thing i found that N64 games where more "solid" when the PS1 games felt rushed and cheap hard to explain but i beleive the same has happened with ps2 but it still sells well because they managed to get the "cool" tag so 15-30 year olds will buy them.
one last thought with Sony 2 years ahead of the rest it means they will be first to make a new console and there problem will be making the extra leap to attract games players and they might just fail leaving them with a crumy console as microsoft and nintendo come and pick up the peices using the same ideas as sony only making them better.
Dont get me wrong i love SOME games on all 3 consoles but i love more games on the GC than on PS2 and XBOX.
Dave RJR wrote:
> Well is there any point in Nintendo and MS making the GC and XBox -
> everyone has got PS2 instead. Not enough people out there to justify
> the GC and XBox. And most of the games are on PS2 anyway. And why
> bother making PC games? I mean the numbers sold are not worth the
> hassle!
*stares dumbfounded at Dave RJR*
*points and laughs hysterically*
> Well is there any point in Nintendo and MS making the GC and XBox -
> everyone has got PS2 instead. Not enough people out there to justify
> the GC and XBox. And most of the games are on PS2 anyway. And why
> bother making PC games? I mean the numbers sold are not worth the
> hassle!
*stares dumbfounded at Dave RJR*
*points and laughs hysterically*
Mr. Happy wrote:
> No-one should care how many units a console shifts, because unless
> they're making a profit from it, it doesn't much matter. So don't
> judge a console on sales figures, judge it on whether it makes a
> profit.
OK. I've not read all of this thread, so stop me if you have heard this one before, but the fact that PS2 has reached a critical mass in the consumer market means that it is more likely that developers will choose it as a platform for their creative art, and that means it is less likely that other consoles will be chosen. Surely, if there is more money to be made elsewhere, the developers, publishers and retailers will drift away from those consoles which are not making them a profit, Exhibit A in this scenario is the Dreamcast.
The developers do not care about how much Nintendo can profit from a game, they worry about how much they themselves can profit from a game they release. Apart from a few high profile cross-platform games like, Harry Potter, and WWTBAM, not many games truely make it across multiple formats, thanks to exclusivity deals, for instance, Unreal Championship on the XBox, GTA3 on PS2, Halo on Xbox, etc. Once the dust has settled regarding initial skirmishes on the console battlefield, developers then need to think about which platform will make them the most, rightly or wrongly, it is the PS2 right now.
And for those of you saying MS won't hit profitability until 2007, well, take a look at the BSkyB business model, they lost money hand over fist for how many years against terrestrial TV, subsidising the Satellite dishes and set-top-boxes, but they stuck it out, now take a look at the dominant position they hold in the marketplace.
This console war, more than the others before it, is not a sprint, it is a marathon. Much as they deny it, these companies want to get a set-top-box in your house through the back door, using gaming and broadband technology as a teaser. MS and Sony would have faced a major uphill battle to convince sane adults to buy set-top-boxes, so they chose the stealth method, getting kids to pester for a PS2 or XBox was an easy route to lay the foundations for the coming Content Wars.
Remember kids, you heard it here first!
> No-one should care how many units a console shifts, because unless
> they're making a profit from it, it doesn't much matter. So don't
> judge a console on sales figures, judge it on whether it makes a
> profit.
OK. I've not read all of this thread, so stop me if you have heard this one before, but the fact that PS2 has reached a critical mass in the consumer market means that it is more likely that developers will choose it as a platform for their creative art, and that means it is less likely that other consoles will be chosen. Surely, if there is more money to be made elsewhere, the developers, publishers and retailers will drift away from those consoles which are not making them a profit, Exhibit A in this scenario is the Dreamcast.
The developers do not care about how much Nintendo can profit from a game, they worry about how much they themselves can profit from a game they release. Apart from a few high profile cross-platform games like, Harry Potter, and WWTBAM, not many games truely make it across multiple formats, thanks to exclusivity deals, for instance, Unreal Championship on the XBox, GTA3 on PS2, Halo on Xbox, etc. Once the dust has settled regarding initial skirmishes on the console battlefield, developers then need to think about which platform will make them the most, rightly or wrongly, it is the PS2 right now.
And for those of you saying MS won't hit profitability until 2007, well, take a look at the BSkyB business model, they lost money hand over fist for how many years against terrestrial TV, subsidising the Satellite dishes and set-top-boxes, but they stuck it out, now take a look at the dominant position they hold in the marketplace.
This console war, more than the others before it, is not a sprint, it is a marathon. Much as they deny it, these companies want to get a set-top-box in your house through the back door, using gaming and broadband technology as a teaser. MS and Sony would have faced a major uphill battle to convince sane adults to buy set-top-boxes, so they chose the stealth method, getting kids to pester for a PS2 or XBox was an easy route to lay the foundations for the coming Content Wars.
Remember kids, you heard it here first!
Dave RJR wrote:
> Well is there any point in Nintendo and MS making the GC and XBox -
> everyone has got PS2 instead. Not enough people out there to justify
> the GC and XBox. And most of the games are on PS2 anyway. And why
> bother making PC games? I mean the numbers sold are not worth the
> hassle!
----
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Sony will be outsold by Nintendo in this console war, just like they were in the last one.
> Well is there any point in Nintendo and MS making the GC and XBox -
> everyone has got PS2 instead. Not enough people out there to justify
> the GC and XBox. And most of the games are on PS2 anyway. And why
> bother making PC games? I mean the numbers sold are not worth the
> hassle!
----
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Sony will be outsold by Nintendo in this console war, just like they were in the last one.
Jez13 wrote:
> ShadowDragon wrote:
> Really? Games are the reason I went for the GameCube. Remember,
> quality not quantity.
>
> What games do you like on GC? Super Smash bros is good, i have to
> admit, but i went for PS2 because of quality games like Medal of
> honour, Gran turismo, Fifa world cup... (do i need to go on!).
---
Yes, Medal of Honour and Gran Turismo aren't bad, but how can anyone in their right mind call FIFA games good???
> ShadowDragon wrote:
> Really? Games are the reason I went for the GameCube. Remember,
> quality not quantity.
>
> What games do you like on GC? Super Smash bros is good, i have to
> admit, but i went for PS2 because of quality games like Medal of
> honour, Gran turismo, Fifa world cup... (do i need to go on!).
---
Yes, Medal of Honour and Gran Turismo aren't bad, but how can anyone in their right mind call FIFA games good???
LOL I love the way Jez said Fifa World Cup.
Page: