The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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 ?"
Doom 3 looks so much better than Halo.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> If it can, it won't be by much.
Well I'd take a programmer's word over yours.
> But what does that matter if they replace it after 4 years because of
> what the competition are doing?
Because after 4 years people will be ready for something new again. Just look at howm any people are looking forward to the 360 and the Revolution.
>
> That's part of Microsoft's problem - they allow themselves to be
> driven by what others are doing, not what they want to do
Yeah this whole 'Xbox live online community' thing's been done before over and over on consoles...
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.
- hence
> their public desire to beat Sony to launch.
That's just good business sense, you try and get a larger userbase than the other company. due to the pricing and earlier launch things should get interesting.
>
> Neither Sony nor Nintendo are driven by the competition.
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.
Sony have
> their audience, and they market to that audience - as do Nintendo.
> Microsoft are in a no-mans land, trying to tell everyone that their
> way is the right way.
None of the companies let things get in the way of their individual 'visions' for gaming.
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.
>
> For them to pay a special audience to cheer at the 360 launch just
> smacks of primary school playgound antics. "Helloooo! I'm
> here! Look what I can do! Why won't anybody look at me?!"
As opposed to 'Xbox 1.5' and all that crap? Yeah...
Oh and amazing 'game footage' that's actually just FMV?
Paying people to cheer is marketing, pure and simple.
> Nothing there that isn't the same for PS3. Hell, even the PSP can do
> it. But do I pay X amount for a 4-year investment, of X+100 for a 10
> year investment? For me, the choice is obvious.
Really a HD and a dedicated online service like Live? Personally if I'm playing the same console 10 years down the line I'll have seriously ****** up somewhere. :S
> If it can, it won't be by much.
Well I'd take a programmer's word over yours.
> But what does that matter if they replace it after 4 years because of
> what the competition are doing?
Because after 4 years people will be ready for something new again. Just look at howm any people are looking forward to the 360 and the Revolution.
>
> That's part of Microsoft's problem - they allow themselves to be
> driven by what others are doing, not what they want to do
Yeah this whole 'Xbox live online community' thing's been done before over and over on consoles...
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.
- hence
> their public desire to beat Sony to launch.
That's just good business sense, you try and get a larger userbase than the other company. due to the pricing and earlier launch things should get interesting.
>
> Neither Sony nor Nintendo are driven by the competition.
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.
Sony have
> their audience, and they market to that audience - as do Nintendo.
> Microsoft are in a no-mans land, trying to tell everyone that their
> way is the right way.
None of the companies let things get in the way of their individual 'visions' for gaming.
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.
>
> For them to pay a special audience to cheer at the 360 launch just
> smacks of primary school playgound antics. "Helloooo! I'm
> here! Look what I can do! Why won't anybody look at me?!"
As opposed to 'Xbox 1.5' and all that crap? Yeah...
Oh and amazing 'game footage' that's actually just FMV?
Paying people to cheer is marketing, pure and simple.
> Nothing there that isn't the same for PS3. Hell, even the PSP can do
> it. But do I pay X amount for a 4-year investment, of X+100 for a 10
> year investment? For me, the choice is obvious.
Really a HD and a dedicated online service like Live? Personally if I'm playing the same console 10 years down the line I'll have seriously ****** up somewhere. :S
Hedfix wrote:
> So you admit it can be pushed further?
If it can, it won't be by much.
> As for lifespan there's the problem of adaptability, from what I can
> recall the 360 is designed to have a longer lifespan than the xbox,
But what does that matter if they replace it after 4 years because of what the competition are doing?
That's part of Microsoft's problem - they allow themselves to be driven by what others are doing, not what they want to do - hence their public desire to beat Sony to launch.
Neither Sony nor Nintendo are driven by the competition. Sony have their audience, and they market to that audience - as do Nintendo. Microsoft are in a no-mans land, trying to tell everyone that their way is the right way.
For them to pay a special audience to cheer at the 360 launch just smacks of primary school playgound antics. "Helloooo! I'm here! Look what I can do! Why won't anybody look at me?!"
> As for 'better value for money', to start off with that's the 360 and
> that should be the case for quite sometime. Then there's quality of
> gaming and I think the higher priced 360 (out of the two versions on
> offer) with a HD has the edge there thanks to downloadable content,
> custom soundtracks and no need for memory cards.
Nothing there that isn't the same for PS3. Hell, even the PSP can do it. But do I pay X amount for a 4-year investment, of X+100 for a 10 year investment? For me, the choice is obvious.
> Sure the PS3's an investment, but to start off with it's not a very
> enticing one.
Maybe not to you, but like I said, it is to plenty of others.
As, no doubt, is the 360. It's just not for me.
Anyway, that's enough for me for tonight. I'm off to watch a DVD. Night.
> So you admit it can be pushed further?
If it can, it won't be by much.
> As for lifespan there's the problem of adaptability, from what I can
> recall the 360 is designed to have a longer lifespan than the xbox,
But what does that matter if they replace it after 4 years because of what the competition are doing?
That's part of Microsoft's problem - they allow themselves to be driven by what others are doing, not what they want to do - hence their public desire to beat Sony to launch.
Neither Sony nor Nintendo are driven by the competition. Sony have their audience, and they market to that audience - as do Nintendo. Microsoft are in a no-mans land, trying to tell everyone that their way is the right way.
For them to pay a special audience to cheer at the 360 launch just smacks of primary school playgound antics. "Helloooo! I'm here! Look what I can do! Why won't anybody look at me?!"
> As for 'better value for money', to start off with that's the 360 and
> that should be the case for quite sometime. Then there's quality of
> gaming and I think the higher priced 360 (out of the two versions on
> offer) with a HD has the edge there thanks to downloadable content,
> custom soundtracks and no need for memory cards.
Nothing there that isn't the same for PS3. Hell, even the PSP can do it. But do I pay X amount for a 4-year investment, of X+100 for a 10 year investment? For me, the choice is obvious.
> Sure the PS3's an investment, but to start off with it's not a very
> enticing one.
Maybe not to you, but like I said, it is to plenty of others.
As, no doubt, is the 360. It's just not for me.
Anyway, that's enough for me for tonight. I'm off to watch a DVD. Night.
'Much Further'.
So you admit it can be pushed further?
As for lifespan there's the problem of adaptability, from what I can recall the 360 is designed to have a longer lifespan than the xbox, but even if it only had a 4 year lifespan we'd see a PS3 beating (power-wise) follow-up which after 4 years wouldn't be seen as a bad thing by a lot of people.
As for 'better value for money', to start off with that's the 360 and that should be the case for quite sometime. Then there's quality of gaming and I think the higher priced 360 (out of the two versions on offer) with a HD has the edge there thanks to downloadable content, custom soundtracks and no need for memory cards.
Sure the PS3's an investment, but to start off with it's not a very enticing one.
So you admit it can be pushed further?
As for lifespan there's the problem of adaptability, from what I can recall the 360 is designed to have a longer lifespan than the xbox, but even if it only had a 4 year lifespan we'd see a PS3 beating (power-wise) follow-up which after 4 years wouldn't be seen as a bad thing by a lot of people.
As for 'better value for money', to start off with that's the 360 and that should be the case for quite sometime. Then there's quality of gaming and I think the higher priced 360 (out of the two versions on offer) with a HD has the edge there thanks to downloadable content, custom soundtracks and no need for memory cards.
Sure the PS3's an investment, but to start off with it's not a very enticing one.
Hedfix wrote:
> We'd be seeing more squeezed out of the Xbox if there wasn't a new
> console out by the end of the year.
On the contrary, the original Xbox can't be pushed much further than it already has been, hence the unenviably short 4-year lifespan.
That combines with the fact that MS were absolutely desperate to get a new machine out before Sony. Hence their 'off-the-shelf' approach for reduced development time.
You talk about the expected cost of the PS3, but ask yourself a question: which will be the better value for money?
Sony expect the PS3 to have a 10-year lifespan, which isn't that far fetched when you consider the PS2 has been around for 7. On the other hand, MS had a more powerful system and it only lasted 4 years before they felt the need to replace it.
> We'd be seeing more squeezed out of the Xbox if there wasn't a new
> console out by the end of the year.
On the contrary, the original Xbox can't be pushed much further than it already has been, hence the unenviably short 4-year lifespan.
That combines with the fact that MS were absolutely desperate to get a new machine out before Sony. Hence their 'off-the-shelf' approach for reduced development time.
You talk about the expected cost of the PS3, but ask yourself a question: which will be the better value for money?
Sony expect the PS3 to have a 10-year lifespan, which isn't that far fetched when you consider the PS2 has been around for 7. On the other hand, MS had a more powerful system and it only lasted 4 years before they felt the need to replace it.
lcarus wrote:
>
> You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with
> MS's offering.
And Sony are focusing on their games division, so whether it features in other Sony products or not it's still been mainly created for use in the PS3.
>
> You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with
> MS's offering.
And Sony are focusing on their games division, so whether it features in other Sony products or not it's still been mainly created for use in the PS3.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> but the simple fact that
> there's a lot more room for it.
Hardly.
We'd be seeing more squeezed out of the Xbox if there wasn't a new console out by the end of the year.
> but the simple fact that
> there's a lot more room for it.
Hardly.
We'd be seeing more squeezed out of the Xbox if there wasn't a new console out by the end of the year.
lcarus wrote:
> You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with
> MS's offering.
Valid point.
"My fridge is more powerful than your Xbox!"
:-D
> You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with
> MS's offering.
Valid point.
"My fridge is more powerful than your Xbox!"
:-D
Hedfix wrote:
> lcarus wrote:
>
> Though a crude assessment, is that really surprising? Don't forget
> they co-developed a new chip with almost all new architecture.
>
> Which when held up to it's rivals specs produces a bit of a shrug as
> there's little difference between the two except it's likely the
> development cost Sony a hell of a lot more money.
>
> As opposed to spending a lot of money and getting something that's
> almost equal to MS's offering anyway? Doesn't seem a very smart
> approach.
You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with MS's offering.
> lcarus wrote:
>
> Though a crude assessment, is that really surprising? Don't forget
> they co-developed a new chip with almost all new architecture.
>
> Which when held up to it's rivals specs produces a bit of a shrug as
> there's little difference between the two except it's likely the
> development cost Sony a hell of a lot more money.
>
> As opposed to spending a lot of money and getting something that's
> almost equal to MS's offering anyway? Doesn't seem a very smart
> approach.
You forget that the chip won't simply be used in the PS3, as with MS's offering.
Page: