Viewing Thread:
"My XBOX 360 pre-order is just about sealed..."

[URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615089p1.html?reload=true[/URL]

Thanks for the most dull conference ever, Nintendo.

No I know they weren't going to port it over, but I assume that's only because they have no idea about the Revolution at all, so they can't really say they will.

If the Revolution was the same power but they could create the game much quicker and for less money I'm sure it would be on there.

I don't think they were going to anyway.

Bad example, good point though.

That's because the games are pretty much identical except for a few graphical differences and framerate stuff. Gameplay wise they're almost identical. The problem for Revolution would be if the game required huge amounts of power that the console just didn't have - think Oblivion. If Revolution was too underpowered it just wouldn't be able to handle it, so they just wouldn't bother.

Games looking crappier on your console than on the competition's console is not good for business.

Hasn't stopped the PlayStations though...

You're just assuming that developers will be willing to downscale the games. They'll basically have to rewrite the code and cut out hige chunks of the games, and some games just won't work on Revolution if the power gap is too big. Developers don't like downscaling games - they want to make the best game possible, so they'll spend their time on that.

I'd imagine that doing absolutely nothing at all for Revolution is a cheaper option than downscaling the games for it.

They'll downscale the games for Revolution because it is so cheap.

And new developers will start on Revolution.

Dringo wrote:
> It does seem like, for a change, most games will be on Revolution,
> simply because development time is shorter.

It depends on the power difference between the consoles. There will be some games which Revolution, if it really is only 2-3x more powerful, just won't be able to handle (think 9,000 enemies on screen in Kameo), but it'll still get all the EA games and whatnot.

mattributé wrote:
> But haven't you got to pay to play some games on Xbox Live?
>
Currently you have to pay £40 a year (or just renew with a £30 starter kit) to play Xbox Live.

Microsoft have announced an even bigger service for free, or a premium service (details unknown) at a cost. The only game which required pay-2-play is PSO, just like it is on the GameCube.


> And there's that whole Xbox Live Arcade escapade, where you've got to
> pay a few quid to download 'classic' games.

And you really think people are going to bother with that? Who can honestly say they pay to play any of the MSN games?

>
> They'll screw you in other ways rather than Live service, believe me.
> Most probably by putting all online maps or whatever as download
> content or something equally stupid.

Maybe, maybe not. I think Microsoft know people don't like paying for maps, thus advising of a date when the currently pay-to-download Halo 2 map pack will be free to download.

It does seem like, for a change, most games will be on Revolution, simply because development time is shorter.