The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4270302.stm[/URL]
Hopefully this won't be bad news for the gaming industry.
Hopefully this won't be bad news for the gaming industry.
Page:
Doom 3 looks so much better than Halo.
Well I've just read through all the posts and I have to say I'm left a little confused. Even though the look of games has improved over time on the XBox like any other console, I really fail to see how games looking crap at launch, but looking a bit better towards the end of a consoles life has anything in the way of a positive ?
Games should become better from developers being able to use their imagination to bring better gameplay, not just squeeze some more out of the machine for some better graphics than earlier games.
As for the whole lifespan thing - so what is the right way for Microsoft to take as a competitor ? Sit back for another couple of years, let the PS3 come out and get the majority of the market before they put the 360 on the shelves ? Don't be bloody stupid. If MS are going to take more of the buyers, they need to go the way they have and offer the next gen now before Sony can get on the shelves. You'll no doubt find that both of these next gen consoles have a similar lifespan, because they'll be starting out roughly around the same time. The only reason the XBox has had a shorter lifespan is because it came out alot later than the PS2 and MS aren't naieve enough to think that the XBox will still grab loads of sales while Sony offer the next gen.
Judging by Sony's reaction of sinking to petty name calling and FMV movies, Microsoft have definatly made the right choices. Sony has been losing more exclusive titles all the time and alot of people are starting to realise that the name Playstation doesn't automatically mean its the best. And as its been mentioned, Microsoft easily have the best online service by far and I very much doubt Sony will match Live in the next gen. Its only a matter of time before people start to look at those pretty demos that Sony always show when they announce a new console and realise "Hey, isn't this what they did last time ? And yet none of their games actually lived upto the looks of these demos ?"
Games should become better from developers being able to use their imagination to bring better gameplay, not just squeeze some more out of the machine for some better graphics than earlier games.
As for the whole lifespan thing - so what is the right way for Microsoft to take as a competitor ? Sit back for another couple of years, let the PS3 come out and get the majority of the market before they put the 360 on the shelves ? Don't be bloody stupid. If MS are going to take more of the buyers, they need to go the way they have and offer the next gen now before Sony can get on the shelves. You'll no doubt find that both of these next gen consoles have a similar lifespan, because they'll be starting out roughly around the same time. The only reason the XBox has had a shorter lifespan is because it came out alot later than the PS2 and MS aren't naieve enough to think that the XBox will still grab loads of sales while Sony offer the next gen.
Judging by Sony's reaction of sinking to petty name calling and FMV movies, Microsoft have definatly made the right choices. Sony has been losing more exclusive titles all the time and alot of people are starting to realise that the name Playstation doesn't automatically mean its the best. And as its been mentioned, Microsoft easily have the best online service by far and I very much doubt Sony will match Live in the next gen. Its only a matter of time before people start to look at those pretty demos that Sony always show when they announce a new console and realise "Hey, isn't this what they did last time ? And yet none of their games actually lived upto the looks of these demos ?"
Hell, not reading all that. But just bear in mind, Sony aren't really going to sit back and watch their online service fall back from Live, are they?
And those who say the controller is crap, it's not like you've tried it, eh?
And those who say the controller is crap, it's not like you've tried it, eh?
Fact is, Sony just don't have the experience that Microsoft have for an online gaming community to match Live. As for the controller being slated - I seem to remember alot of people getting their kicks in on the Xbox and its controller. Now that the roles are reversed, suddenly everyones all grown up and looks don't matter.
Of course I know that the controller for PS3 is supposedly "not the final design" - but my guess is its close to that. Either that or they'll grab a PS2 pad, scrape off the PS2 logo and add a PS3 one, then shove that in the box.
Overall though, Sony can do whatever they want with the controller, cause I still won't buy a PS3. Sick of the crud reliability of their consoles, the lack of quality to match the boasting they do and their BS marketing. Judging by what they've done so far, this trend isn't changing. In fact, its getting worse - cause now that they're getting worried, the name calling has started.
Of course I know that the controller for PS3 is supposedly "not the final design" - but my guess is its close to that. Either that or they'll grab a PS2 pad, scrape off the PS2 logo and add a PS3 one, then shove that in the box.
Overall though, Sony can do whatever they want with the controller, cause I still won't buy a PS3. Sick of the crud reliability of their consoles, the lack of quality to match the boasting they do and their BS marketing. Judging by what they've done so far, this trend isn't changing. In fact, its getting worse - cause now that they're getting worried, the name calling has started.
Of course you do whatever you wish. But it's easy for everyone to speculate, poke fun at and criticse every detail of an initial announcement when a company hasn't even released the specifics of real services that will drive the console.
lcarus wrote:
> Of course you do whatever you wish. But it's easy for everyone to
> speculate, poke fun at and criticse every detail of an initial
> announcement when a company hasn't even released the specifics of
> real services that will drive the console.
A bit like calling the 360 'Xbox 1.5' then? ;D
> Of course you do whatever you wish. But it's easy for everyone to
> speculate, poke fun at and criticse every detail of an initial
> announcement when a company hasn't even released the specifics of
> real services that will drive the console.
A bit like calling the 360 'Xbox 1.5' then? ;D
Hedfix wrote:
> Yeah this whole 'Xbox live online community' thing's been done before
> over and over on consoles...
I meant in terms of the need to beat PS3 to market, dropping the price of Xbox by £100 4 weeks after launch because it didn't sell sufficient numbers, etc. Yes, it's marketing practice. But it's marketing guided by the actions/successes of other companies, rather than showing a belief in their own product to come through on merit, or doing things at their own pace, as both Sony and Nintendo have done.
I don't think Sony have ever launched first - PS1 after Saturn, PS2 after Dreamcast, PSP after DS - and they've always enjoyed the dominant market share. PSP/DS aside, they've always managed it with supposedly inferior hardware, too. This time, they have at least an equal footing from the start.
> As opposed to 'Xbox 1.5' and all that crap? Yeah...
This crap always goes on. Actually, when the Xbox launched, I recall Microsoft claiming that they were going to beat Sony into submission. Even had a demo on the Xbox for it of something big (robot or similar) stomping on a PS2, apparently - don't think this made it outside of the US though. Suddenly, "Xbox 1.5" doesn't sound quite so petty, does it?
> That's what MS have going for them and it's carrying over to 360 and
> is currently the only structured online setup for console gamers.
> Microsoft have Live, they market to Live players and those that like
> the Xbox exclusives. As far as online console gaming goes MS are the
> leaders and it looks as though they'll stay in the lead with the
> 360.
There's a lot pinned on Live. Maybe too much, considering I read somewhere a short time ago that only something like 10% of Xbox owners actually subscribe to Live (not sure if that was global or UK-only, though).
> Yeah Sony are just re-structuring their company for the hell of it
> and not because their competitors have been eating away at their
> market share.
Re-read the article. They certainly aren't restructuring because of the performance of the games division, or what competitors in that area are doing. It's elsewhere, non-games related. SCE has been Sony's most profitable area for several years now.
> Really a HD and a dedicated online service like Live?
Presumably you haven't read the details, otherwise you'd know. HD yes, probably optional as with the 360. Online certainly, but a different approach. Which approach is best depends on your point of view. For someone like me who rarely if ever touches online gaming, I'd rather a free service than an annual fee. But like I said - that's personal preference.
There you go, questions answered as requested, and without any detrimental comments about the 360. Now can we please move on?
> Yeah this whole 'Xbox live online community' thing's been done before
> over and over on consoles...
I meant in terms of the need to beat PS3 to market, dropping the price of Xbox by £100 4 weeks after launch because it didn't sell sufficient numbers, etc. Yes, it's marketing practice. But it's marketing guided by the actions/successes of other companies, rather than showing a belief in their own product to come through on merit, or doing things at their own pace, as both Sony and Nintendo have done.
I don't think Sony have ever launched first - PS1 after Saturn, PS2 after Dreamcast, PSP after DS - and they've always enjoyed the dominant market share. PSP/DS aside, they've always managed it with supposedly inferior hardware, too. This time, they have at least an equal footing from the start.
> As opposed to 'Xbox 1.5' and all that crap? Yeah...
This crap always goes on. Actually, when the Xbox launched, I recall Microsoft claiming that they were going to beat Sony into submission. Even had a demo on the Xbox for it of something big (robot or similar) stomping on a PS2, apparently - don't think this made it outside of the US though. Suddenly, "Xbox 1.5" doesn't sound quite so petty, does it?
> That's what MS have going for them and it's carrying over to 360 and
> is currently the only structured online setup for console gamers.
> Microsoft have Live, they market to Live players and those that like
> the Xbox exclusives. As far as online console gaming goes MS are the
> leaders and it looks as though they'll stay in the lead with the
> 360.
There's a lot pinned on Live. Maybe too much, considering I read somewhere a short time ago that only something like 10% of Xbox owners actually subscribe to Live (not sure if that was global or UK-only, though).
> Yeah Sony are just re-structuring their company for the hell of it
> and not because their competitors have been eating away at their
> market share.
Re-read the article. They certainly aren't restructuring because of the performance of the games division, or what competitors in that area are doing. It's elsewhere, non-games related. SCE has been Sony's most profitable area for several years now.
> Really a HD and a dedicated online service like Live?
Presumably you haven't read the details, otherwise you'd know. HD yes, probably optional as with the 360. Online certainly, but a different approach. Which approach is best depends on your point of view. For someone like me who rarely if ever touches online gaming, I'd rather a free service than an annual fee. But like I said - that's personal preference.
There you go, questions answered as requested, and without any detrimental comments about the 360. Now can we please move on?
I love the spin you put on it but unfortunately:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Yes, so I'm a Sony fanboy. So what?
Like I said in the other thread: I see no point in continuing the discussion after this admission.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Yes, so I'm a Sony fanboy. So what?
Like I said in the other thread: I see no point in continuing the discussion after this admission.
At least some of us have the guts to admit being a fan of a particular machine.
If preferring one system over another makes you a fanboy, then yes, I'm a fanboy.
So I bid you a cheery "whatever".
If preferring one system over another makes you a fanboy, then yes, I'm a fanboy.
So I bid you a cheery "whatever".
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> At least some of us have the guts to admit being a fan of a particular
> machine.
>
> If preferring one system over another makes you a fanboy, then yes,
> I'm a fanboy.
I must be a PS2 fanboy then.
> At least some of us have the guts to admit being a fan of a particular
> machine.
>
> If preferring one system over another makes you a fanboy, then yes,
> I'm a fanboy.
I must be a PS2 fanboy then.
Page: