The PS2 - A Betamax In the Making? 254
Feedmag is running an article that talks about the "openness" of the PS2, as well as the upcoming competition with the widely anticipated X-Box. Well thought out and interesting.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie
Re:PS2 has optical digital outs (Score:1)
Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore? (Score:1)
shoppers who will return DOA2 and X-Squad for
not being the type of "Hardcore" they were
expecting.
Not very original association.. (Score:1)
Ps2 (Score:1)
But i digress, i think that ps2 is going to go at a hell of a pace forwards in popularity. to be trailed by the Xbox, who knows what's going to happen with them, as someone else mentioned before, the dreamcast, i only vaugely heard stuff about that, mainly from one guy at work here who ended up getting bored with it and the stiff prices on the games, he ended up selling it for a couple hundred bucks (Australian) to someone else and just tried to forget he ever bought the thing.
Heres to sony, the one and only.
and no i don't work for sony!
--
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:1)
"Why would any kid want a 'Sony' when compared to the huge brandnames of Nintendo and Sega?"
The problem with your argument is that the core audience is 13 years old and doesn't have much brand loyalty or even brand knowledge at all. In fact being a known brand might even translate into "old and bad" to this crowd. (For them, 2 years ago might as well have been in the seventeenth century for all they know.)
Microsoft FUDD again (Score:2)
First off, the single biggest reason that BETA lost the war was due to the half-as-long-as-VHS tapes. While that wasn't the situation for long, it was a problem at a key point in consumer adoptation. Similar problem with VCDs. This arguement might apply to DreamCast v. PS2 or X but the storage space on X and PS2 is identical.
Another point brought up is that the X box does not require developer's licenses, but this has been the situation with PC gamming from the beginning and yet consoles still rule. Sounds like their "facts' just don't hold up.
Then there are several things they conviently avoid... It may be easy to port PC games to X but it *should* not require any porting at all! It is just using PC hardware... It's onl microsoft's propritary OS that leads to any trouble at all.
Finally, Processing power! The PS2 is a minature CRAY supercomputer and the X-Box is a minature 600MHz PC. Does that even compare?
Only advantage I see to the X-box; a week after the X-box comes out we'll have hacks to run Linux on it!
emulators (Score:1)
be pretty easy
like a PC
making emulators for the PS2 should be waaaay
harder since
hardware architecture
i think MS should make legal xbox emulators for
lets say 1/5 the price of the xbox and sell
em legaly
emulators for free
the rom
they emulated amiga
who are they ??
i want to be a haxor
i will control the net
LOVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
cya
past performance (Score:1)
Well its pretty hard to call. PS2 is out the door but the horse is limping. The inital crop of games induced a few "wow's!" but more than a few "whatevers", as developer knowledge of the platform increases the quality of product will improve, but still, right now the dreamcast is the platform running the best titles.
When the XBox comes out it'll be winning hardware wise, have an impressive roster of people developing for it and half a billion dollars of a marketing budget. Microsoft may be prone to buggy software, but consider that this is a closed box, lots of nastiness with incompatibility (the source of many a game developers woe's) and a favoured set of api's will greatly reduce instability.
G
Re:PS2 will take some time to mature. (Score:3)
Looking back at the run of the original PlayStation, it's very clear that the games have become better and better visually as time has progressed, and the programmers have learned to better utilise the hardware and it's abilities. I only hope for Sony's sake that they can do that again.
Of course, this always happens with console platforms. For example, compare
As developers familiarise themselves and build up/optimize their platform skills, the amount of performance they wrench out can be amazing. You should have seen the Spectrum port of Chase HQ - it's unbelievable how much they crammed into that crappy little box!
The real deciding factor tends to be the gap in technologies at deployment. The most successful consoles had a combination of far superior technology and good early games. That's why the SNES killed the Genesis, and the Playstation killed the Saturn. N64 was hampered by a late arrival and fairly insignificant graphical advances. More pointedly, the Sega 32-bit upgrade didn't really offer much above the SNES so it flopped. So the question is - how much better (tech wise) is the PS/2. I can't really say - initially it looked like the tech would blow everything out of the water, but now I'm not so sure. All I know is, if it flops, there goes another victim of the RAMBUS touch of death. :)
Re:PS2 (Score:1)
I prefer PSX2"
Uh-hu. I suggest you had better discuss this with Sony (you know, the makers of the PS2). For after all, it is they themselves who refer to the product via the abbreviation "PS2". They even went as far as writing "PS2" in teh form of a logo on the PS2 itself!
However, I am sure that if you tell them you don't like it, they will change the name specially for you and recall all existing PS2s so they can change the logo...
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:2)
No it runs linux-based OS (Score:1)
--
Re:Amiga (Score:1)
Sega: long line of bad games (Score:1)
Are we kidding ourselves? (Score:1)
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:1)
A guy on the Xbox team (Seamus Blackely) gave a talk at my college two weeks ago and he said quite explicitly that Microsoft will be charging considerable amounts for the dev kit. Select developers (SquareSoft, for example) will receive big discounts.
Also, the Xbox will use a proprietary DVD based format. Even if you developed a game, you still have to find a way to burn a DVD
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
Playstation is really kind of odd, in that the hype about it seems to transcend from geeks and games to almost everyone. CNN.com had a front page story on it this morning, for Christ sake. My parents would give me blank stares if I tell them about Dreamcast, X-Box, or GameCube. But they sure as hell know what a Playstation is. Sony has done a brilliant job marketing both this and the PS1.
*sigh* Hopefully Sony will stick to their 100k consoles a week until Christmas promise, and I can get one in a couple weeks. DOA2 and NHL2001 are calling me.
Re:PS2 has optical digital outs (Score:1)
OTOH, NVIDIA's newly announced sound chip for the Xbox will feature Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding, hopefully allowing for true surround sound in games.
DVD problems (Score:1)
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
end of consoles (hopefully) (Score:1)
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:1)
Re:PS2 (Score:1)
Thanks! Every time I see PS2, I wonder "What does this have to do with mouse and keyboard connectors?" (...which is the only lasting impression the PS/2 made on the world. Sorry, MCA may have been better than ISA and even EISA, but EISA had backward compatiblity.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
Re:Bug in your sig (Score:1)
The coming Video Game Wars (Score:3)
I work at a EB in my town, and I hear all sides of how people are looking at the next round of console wars. Basically, there are a few groups that pretty much everyone can be put it.
A) The platform loyalists. I have heard people come in and say they will buy whatever Sony/Nintendo/Sega/Microsoft/Grandma/Acme puts out and they have no doubts that it will be the system that destroys all others.
B) The patient waiter. These are the people that are going to wait for the next 3 systems to be released and then buy the one (ones) that have the best games. This seems to be the most logically one, but these days, whats logic anyways)
C) The misinformed. You would be amazed at what some people think about the various systems. This is where the hype really plays in, and these are the people that marketing folks just LOVE.
Unfortunately, it seems that most people fall into category C. Some peolpe think the PS2 is more powerful than a $3000 PC. Others think the GameCube is less powerful than the Dreamcast. Others still will try and convince you that Superman for the N64 is a good game.
The Betamax comparison is completely off base here. The reason being that Betamax was actually better quality than VHS, but VHS still won the war. If anything, in the coming months Sony and its PS2 will be the VHS of the upcoming console shoot out, and it will be up to their marketing department to make the PS2 the mainstream machine.
Everyone here knows that superior tech wont mean squat if you don't have a compelling reason to use it. On consoles this means exclusive games. Its looking like the PS2 is not going to get those exclusive titles from third parties like Oddworld 2 (recently announced to have switched to XBox exclusively), and instead they are going to have to rely on their in house dev teams (there is only ONE Sony brand launch title) to draw people to their platform.
These upcoming console wars are going to be interesting indeed.
Re:what about nintendo? (Score:1)
Anyway, while I won't say one console creates quality games compared to other consoles, I will say that different consoles have different markets. For example, Sega has a repuation for having good sports games. Nintendo tends to be targetted for a younger audience (like, 10 year olds) that goes for action/adventure games (mario, zelda, bond, whatever). Sony, on the other hand, have a very large RPG market which is probably for an older crowd (teenagers). (Probably due to memory limitations of a cartridge compared to CDs. Those nice RPG movie sequences require space). Anyway, the point is, Nintendo doesn't have better games than other consoles, but they do have different games.
PS2 - Not worth it (Score:1)
Re:I love Beta! (Score:1)
But getting back to the point, quality of the machine means nothing compared to the modules the machine plays. I too followed Square, and I'll stick with Sony as long as Square does. And anyone who's played console games knows, say, playing Final Fantasy on a PC just isn't the same (some say it's better, I say pbbbt ! there's a reason why they sell console style controllers for PCs). I guess it's the same reason why I still haven't picked up FF Anthology, I don't want to play FF6(3) on a playstation when I've still got my SNES.
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:1)
I think I'll hold off... (Score:1)
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:1)
Besides, I'm sick of all those whiny punks playing all my favorite mods (especially CS). I don't need Gran Turino or Final Fantasy XXI to come out for the PC. Leave those to the console kiddies.
I thought Signal 11 was gone... (Score:1)
Or was that, like just about everything else you seem to write, another totally self-serving, manipulative pile of crap meant to cash in on the "Slashdot sucks, we K5 readers are more intelligent than that" mentality?
Oh wait, never mind. If you read his user profile [slashdot.org] he's apparently letting anyone use his account for karma whoring and trolling.
Either that or it's his excuse for ending his pretense at "groupthink experimentation" and going back to being a shamelss karma whore / troll... argh, I've spent too much time thinking about this already...
Jay (=
Re:Epiphany (Score:1)
God forbid you want to watch TV
I really wanted a PS2 today, but couldn't bring myself to drop $500 for a usable system (ps2, controller, memory, games), plus the time to sit in line...
M$ or Linux (Score:1)
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a computer, and if I want to play a pc game I'll get it and play it on my pc. I am not buying a seperate peice of hardware to play something I can play now.
PS2 is going like mad right now...I've seen several people who were in line at the stores to get theirs...
Sony has done good, and will still do good, the ps1 was a good console box...and I have yet to find a lack of games or junk to go with it.
Just my $0.02
Re:The X-box is not as clean as you think. (Score:2)
the whole question is stupid (Score:2)
On the other hand, if PS2 wins, it will be because the open development model of X-Box leads to a glut of crappy games, while Sony gets good developers with at least some minimal quality assurance. That's how Nintendo beat Atari so many years ago.
Personally, I think M$ will win, because Sony is pushing PS2 as a desktop computer replacement, a role for which it is completely unsuitable. It doesn't matter; if we manage to send either Sony or MS down the tubes, we're left with one larger evil corporate monopoly that wants to take over the world, instead of two smaller ones.
Re:PS2 (Score:1)
Too bad, because Sony (you remember, the makers of the PS2 - they can call it what the hell they like, it's their machine) call it the PS2. Seems they are ignoring you - maybe you should hassle them some more?
While you are here, have a look at www.sony.com [sony.com] and look at the pic on the top right - oh look! It refers to "PlayStation2" and "PS2" but not "PSX2".
Now do a search on the Sony site for "PSX2" - to save you the hassle, here is the link to the results of such a search - Sorry, there were no matches for your search. [sony.com]
Looks like you are outvoted by Sony themselves, I'm afraid.
Journalistic accuracy? Or tabloid trash? (Score:1)
So all of Sony's websites, after PS2 is released here, will be hyping PS3?
Way to stay objective. Never mind the fact that if all you did was dedicate the P3 to outputting games to a 600x400 TV screen, you'd rip up framerate wise as well. Hence the X-Box.
Obscurity? nVidia hit the scene a lot earlier that "a little over a year ago". The Riva128 was a VERY talked about card. And the TNT became a Voodoo2 killer (though not an SLI killer). This was back in August/September of 1998. Apparently, to this guy, they didn't exist before the TNT2 Ultra.Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Rambus (Score:1)
Re:The X-box is not as clean as you think. (Score:1)
Current compilers are uber-optimized already for the x86. The bulk of game code can be written in C++ with an assurance of reasonable performance.
Does that mean that X-Box will do better than the PS2? Who knows?
Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:1)
-motardo
Amiga (Score:1)
- ...
- Early Amiga games (Marble Madness) with later ones (Elfmania, Stardust)
- ...
You really want to start an Amiga flamewar, don't you?The Amiga is/was NOT only a game machine dammit!
:)
Re:Sega: long line of bad games (Score:1)
Developers. (Score:1)
PS2 (Score:1)
My Second Vote Was For Gore [mikegallay.com]
What are you on? (Score:2)
Dreamcast (Score:4)
Plus, you *have* to play NFL2K1. The gameplay and artificial intelligence are outstanding.
Obvious parallel (Score:2)
But completely irrelavent.
The betamax lost for one reason only, MARKETING.
That's how it works. There is a reason noone is using CP/M anymore. The Betamax had hardly any movies released.
This article is a worthless Piece of Shit.
--
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:2)
Say... Something like a little message on the screen saying.
"By attempting to install an alternate Operating System on your Xbox you have violated the terms and conditions for using this Computing device. While you were reading this your hard disk has been formatted and your bios erased. Thank you for choosing the Xbox, have a nice day
****PLINK****
--
Sony needs to open up (Score:2)
But Microsoft has its own problems. The X-Box looks like it's going to be both expensive (because of its reliance on PC technology) and significantly behind the curve in terms of performance. And from what it looks like so far, the X-Box software architecture isn't exactly going to be pretty either; close ties to Windows APIs are both a blessing and a curse.
I think whichever box ends up more open and more hackable will win in the market, if for slightly different reasons. I hope Sony figures this out before it's too late. Microsoft, with their choice of fairly standard PC technologies, may end up not being able to do anything about winning in the market that way, but their victory may be Pyrrhic, as they see their nice X-boxes turned into even nicer, Microsoft-subsidized Linux machines.
Epiphany (Score:5)
At first I was going to wait for the Nintendo 64, then I was going to wait for the Dreamcast, then I was going to way for the Playstation 2, and now I'm thinking of waiting for the X-Box, but it finally hit me.
Man can own multiple console machines at the same time.
Apparently, there is no crime against owning both a Playstation 2 and a Dreamcast at the same time or even, dare I say it, a Nintendo 64, Playstation 2 and Dreamcast at the same time.
Now, I'm not sure why I thought that I couldn't own two consoles at the same time. I guess it just feels a bit wrong owning two machines which do basically the exact same thing only because sony, sega and nintendo can't get it through their heads that the money is in the software.
PS2 will take some time to mature. (Score:2)
The main reason we're all playing on the Dreamcast rather than the PS2 is that the games are currently *far* more impressive on that platform. Many an afternoon is wasted^H^H^H^H^H^Hdedicated to competitive research of games such as SoulCalibur, Crazy Taxi, Sega Rally, and so on. Clearly, it's far easier for us to get games for the DC because of the fact that it's been around over here for a while, but still, we have 4 games for the PS2. And the only one of those that is even vaguely fun is the soccer game we have. It's also the game with the most realism (we have a racing game that is more realistic, but it's realistic to the point of unplayability). The games we have are visibly early-adoption titles.
I have a feeling that if the PS2 really is going to be the trojan horse of the home entertainment market, the games developers are going to have to mature their games very quickly indeed. Looking back at the run of the original PlayStation, it's very clear that the games have become better and better visually as time has progressed, and the programmers have learned to better utilise the hardware and it's abilities. I only hope for Sony's sake that they can do that again.
Parallel processing is nothing new (Score:3)
I imagine it's true for the PSX and other 1st gen consoles, but even back in the Amiga days you could get the best performance by directly addressing the graphics chip to do parallel processing, etc.
Hell, the same could even be said for the Pentium with its multiple pipelines, and with the fancy graphics cards, but the majority of developers just forget about it and let DirectX or the compiler work out how to do it well enough, or they just go and licence the Quake, etc, engine where someone else has gone to the trouble of hand-optimising.
As with all new systems, there's going to be a learning process. Go back to the launch of the PSX and look at some of the games you went WOW over, and compare them with the speed and complexity of new titles for exactly the same handware, now that developers have had a chance to work out how to squeeze every last drop out of the system.
And given the success of Linux, obsucre technical documentation seems to be no hurdle to the average programmer...
Re:No it runs linux-based OS (Score:2)
Re:Sony needs to open up (Score:2)
As for speed, the PC and Pentium architecture is burdened with a lot of stuff that's completely irrelevant to game or console development. The PC and Pentium architecture are adapted to a market that consists of zillions of custom systems, made from cheap if suboptimal components.
With the PS2 Sony has its own volume market. They can dedicate the same chip area that the Pentium dedicates to compromises and backwards compatibility to performance. If Sony hasn't screwed up (and I doubt it--their engineers are good), the PS2 should perform better at a lower cost than a 700MHz PIII (which itself is hardly state of the art anymore) and some nVidia chip.
As for software, I find the Microsoft tools and platform plenty "goofy" and "quirky", so being based on Windows to me is more of a disadvantage. I haven't seen the PS2 APIs, but the situation is probably similar to WinCE vs. PalmOS: WinCE is burdened by its heritage, while PalmOS is well adapted to just the tasks it is supposed to do (even if PalmOS is, by now, showing its age).
Finally, what does Sony benefit from opening up the platform? Nothing if you think that the PS2 is only about commercial console games: then it really just comes down to who markets better to teenagers and who makes better deals with game developers. But if that's all the PS2 is about, it will be irrelevant soon, given the stiff competition. That's the mistake I hope Sony won't fall into.
If, on the other hand, the PS2 becomes an actual home computing platform, an alternative to the PC, then Sony stands to gain a lot if lots of people develop software for it.
Re:PSX (Score:2)
It doesn't mean anything. The letter X is commonly used as a filler when one wants a Three Letter Acronym, and only has a two word name.
Re:4 Consoles, 2 years....who will be around in 6? (Score:2)
However, never in history has the home gaming market been so large. A market this large has room for niches: for example the Saturn remained the machine of choice for 2D fighting game nuts long after the Playstation had trounced it out of the mainstream market. Nintendo's loyal following means that N64 games are still coming out and making money (Mario Tennis promises to be a treat; Mario Golf has given me hours of top-notch entertainment, and I've only played it at friends').
We will see a clear winner, but this will only be a major problem for the companies who've based their business model on getting a near-monopoly (i.e. the companies who don't just want to sell a few games - they want to become the hub of worldwide home-entertainment). Sega and Nintendo have less to lose; they can fill niches and continue to make money. MS and Sony have more riding on this, and one of them will win, one of them will lose.
--
PS2 has optical digital outs (Score:4)
It's in the specs somewhere. Games will be able to use this as well - it'll be nice to have full home theatre surround instead of the tinny 4 speaker setups that most PC surround sound is today.
Re:Obvious parallel (Score:2)
"Twenty years ago, Sony tightly controlled the titles made available for its technically superior videocassette player -- specifically, no adult content -- and found themselves quickly locked out of an incredibly lucrative market for adult and family content. If Sony keeps a tight grip on the PS2 [as far as licensing fees go], they may actually help Microsoft create the new VHS."
Re:PS2 (Score:2)
This movie says it all (Score:2)
Re:4 Consoles, 2 years....who will be around in 6? (Score:2)
However, the one little thing I loved about the end of the SNES's life cycle was the fact that at the end of 1994, Donkey Kong Country was a bigger seller then the entire new 32-bit generation (Saturn/PSX).
Anyway, back onto topic - I believe the market can support 2 consoles. The Nintendo 64 was supported though this generation - the companies make their money from software sales, not hardware sales. Look at the Top 10 games sales lists. New 1st and 2nd party N64 software is constantly in the top positions. People buy the software, N64 games sell incredibly well. The Ocarina of Time was a huge seller (and a damn great game too).
2 consoles can survive, this has been shown. And, in this next generation, 3 might squeeze in. The PS2 is here, if only due to it's hype machine fooling the public that it is a great consol (it's not imho). The Gamecube will be at least as successful as the N64 (and the N64 made Nintendo money), if not more (it is FAR easier on 3rd parties to code for then the N64 or PS2). Nintendo always manage some classic games, ALWAYS. And, I think Microsoft will squeeze the X-Box into the market, mainly because they could make no money at all this generation just to push the X-Box into the market as part of a long-term (next or 2 generations time), or it might just be successful this time.
Well, I've ranted, hope it makes some sence. I have my 1st VCE (final year of high school in the Victorian [state of Australian] education system) exam in 11 hours. It's an English exam. I should have been revising. All well. Hope I can write a nice piece on Montana 1948 and Cabaret then....
I should get some sleep....
X-Box more of a threat to traditional PC (Score:2)
So in spite of this, does anyone still think Microsoft is going to choose to make less profit and cut into potential Windows marketshare out of the goodness of their own hearts and a love of spiffy technology?
However- it does make _great_ vaporware to try and cut off Sony's air supply with, and the risks of faking demos for it are much less than the risks of faking demos in court! So you'll be hearing a LOT about the wonderful X-Box.
Just don't bank on ever _buying_ it. That is not its purpose.
Re:Stop with the "hard to program" comments alread (Score:2)
Actually, the PS1 wasn't a bitch at first. Programmers had a very easy time with getting good results out of the PS1; it was Sega's Saturn that gave them so much difficulty. Eventually the Saturn titles got a lot better, but not after a great deal of work. The PS2 is likely to get a lot better also, but it will take effort - and probably more effort than the developers will need to get similar results on other systems.
Re:The coming Video Game Wars (Score:2)
D) The consumate gamer. They don't care what platform it is, if the games are good, they'll get it.
I fall into that category. The way I see it, the platform doesn't make the games, the games make the platform.
Of course, I have a good income, a Visa, and a penchant for impulse buying, so that may be part of it too
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:2)
Here`s why you`d develop for the xbox:
The PSX2 has an impressive feature set, but this time,
sony isn`t betting on games alone. The games that are
allready out there are specifically tailored to psx2,
and ho would expect otherwise, yes. But this also means
there is little more room left for gradually stepping
up the game quality of the next series of games.
When the first psx came out, developers still had to
find out how it worked from scratch, this time things
are different. Some preferred Japanese teams have direct
support while other companies need to go out and pay for
'obscure' documentation, and then hope they can make the
best of it. Some of the games out now allready make very
heavy use of the new dedicated hardware. This also means
the lifespan of interest in the psx2 will not last as
long, and that is why Sony absolutely needs to turn the
psx2 into a fullblown homecomputer.
Betting your game development on psx2 NOW is tedious.
Chances of standing out with your game on a technical
perspective are slim. PSX2 is allready past it`s hype
while xbox still has to appear, and it won`t be until
people experience the hard framerates that the hype
around it will subdue.
On the other hand, you have the xbox. Here, too, there
are issues. Microsoft allready bought Bungie and knows
how to create games on the pc platform. This time, they
control the hardware, andthe software, which makes you
wonder about their api`s and the REAL openness.
So, while they say their api`s are open, the reality
learns us that they are charging money for it. Still
the chances that you can score on xbox are
potentially higher because the platform is not out
yet, and there`s room for follow-ups in case the
game should proove to be enhanceable.
On a sidenote, it`s interesting to see that while Oni
(by bungie) was due to be released earlier this year,
it`s obvious that Bungie will want to publish the title
on xbox first. Clearly, Microsoft wants to enter the
fight with a major kick-off.
So if I had to choose now, I`d choose the xbox. It`s
PC related, and the games you write for xbox are
portable to the PC, making sure they address a
microsoft accustomed crowd.
what do you think ?
4 Consoles, 2 years....who will be around in 6? (Score:2)
I for one do not think that the market can stably support 4 consoles given current development and distribution models. Console game development is expensive in ramp-up learning time, and therefore companies will need to make decisions on what console they will make games for.
So now the question is, who will survive to the next iteration (it's approximately a 5 year cycle, so who will still be around in 6 years?). My money is on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Sony and Nintendo for I think they will both make a lot of money off of their consoles, and Microsoft because while I don't necessarily think that they will make as much money, they can afford for at least one iteration not to.
Currently, at least, that's my guess...but then again, maybe the market CAN support 4 consoles and I am wrong....or perhaps I am still wrong, and it can only support 2?...
Re:The X-box is not as clean as you think. (Score:3)
Then Microsoft will have the same problem Sony had where developers were bypassing their published SDK, writing directly to hardware and creating games that were incompatible with certain model PSX's. Not a pretty site, and could be a PR disaster. Sony cracked down on it hard and fast, telling developers in no uncertain terms that they were to use the SDK at all times. When programmers write to the so-called "bare metal", you lose the ability to correct errors and flaws in the underlying hardware and software.
In a war of FUD, don't you think Nintendo could trump even MS and the X-box?
FUD? FUD doesn't apply to a world where sales are predominantly decided by children. In that world, whatever has the best graphics, games and commercials (and to a lesser extent, price) is the one that will sell, and the others will vanish into the woodwork. Probably the most important factor will be the fact that console games and PC games have been traditionally vastly different in varieties, and gameplay. There has been some crossover, notably Quake, Final Fantasy and a few others, but for the most part the crossover versions paled in comparison to the native versions. I have a feeling that the X-Box will be more of a threat to the traditional PC gaming markets than the console markets. Remember that Microsoft also doesn't have the Japanese game designers that have made most of the games you'd commonly associate with console machines, but rather has US-based developers who are more often than not more familiar with PC games. I can see it cutting heavily into the PC markets and making a lot of Microsoft's OEM partners very angry.
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:2)
I don't know if you've noticed, but console games are traditionally a lot different from PC games. Although it might be an easy port from PC to X-Box, the opposite will almost definately not be true. The so-called "openness" of a console is a rather silly arguement. No console up until this point has had an open design that anyone could develop for, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. The fees for licensing the development kits and for manufacturing it on licensed media has tended to prevent entry for those who aren't qualified to work on it. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that "Open Source" or free software works for all forms of programs, and games are one I believe only work well from commercial companies that employ artists and designers instead of enthusiasts.
hm, just like the 1980s (Score:2)
Anything and Everything could be the next BetaMax (Score:2)
+ Sony has spread some PR about the PS2 being the next great home computer. However, the Playstation 2, being a closed and proprietary platform, will never attract broad applicaiton support beyond games and maybe a web browser.
You guys think Windows is a closed system, but at least someone doesn't have to buy $20K of custom hardware and sign a stack of NDAs to build an app for it.
+ The XBox, even thought it's based on PC hardware, *is not a PC*, and does not have the advantages of a PC. When you are marketing to lower middle-class parents buying a toy for their 12 year olds, you can't rev the hardware every 18 months like the PC world tends to do.
That means that what MS has announced is what you are going to get, for the next 3 years. Just like Sony.
On top of that Microsoft has no real coherent interactive TV strategy (XBox != WebTV) or application strategy to go along with the XBox. Meaning that this will never be more than a game box either.
There's probably a few people here who remember the days when they chucked their 2600s and ColecoVisions and went on with life gaming on Atari 800s, C-64s, and Apples. And, what do you know, those platforms are still around to some extent and getting press on Slashdot. Maybe this is a fading hope, but someday someone will realise that there is a huge market out there for a *real* home computer, that is very cheap, simple, runs personal applications, and is also a kick-ass game machine. Sony won't do it, and Microsoft can't.
Hard to design for (Score:2)
The X-box is much more conventional - it's an x86 machine with an nVidia graphics chip. What Microsoft is banking on is that by the time the X-box has to go into volume production, it will be possible to build a $300 PC. You can't do that yet, which is why the PS2 has to use wierd hardware.
Bear in mind that the X-box really is a $300 PC, built from parts Microsoft doesn't make. If the X-box can be sold for $300, so can commodity PCs. That opens up some interesting options.
Betamax was never better! (Score:2)
From the urban myths [urbanmyths.com] writeup:
3). "Betamax failed in spite of the fact that it was a superior technology."
False. Comparisons between VCRs with similar features showed no significant differences in performance. In fact, most of the differences could only be seen with sensitive instruments, and likely would never show up on most consumer grade television sets. . In particular, the qualitative differences between the two formats were less than the differences between any two samples from the same manufacturer. It was only the later (and more expensive) versions of Beta which noticeably improved the quality, as commercial and broadcast outlets turned to Beta as a standard. In fact, at that time Beta was an inferior technology because VHS allowed for longer recordings. Early beta technology allowed for one-hour recordings, while VHS allowed two hours.
In the final analysis, the world decided it didn't really need two kinds of video tape--Betamax, say hello to eight track tape.
The real reason was there wasn't enough pr0n on Betamax!
Re:I love Beta! (Score:2)
This type of programming was not a Betamax-specific "feature". My parents just last year *finally* replaced their old VHS VCR (possibly Magnavox?) that they've had since the early-to-mid-80's, and it had the same "flip door" (although the door was long ago broken off) where there were little buttons, dials, and switches to schedule recordings. Seems to me that this isn't something the Beta should be bashed for per se since it was probably how many VCR's of that era, both Betamax and VHS, were programmed.
Re:PS2 (Score:2)
That won't be the case in the US for quite a while, considering the Playstation2 retails for $299 (if you can even get one) while there are many basic DVD players available for under $150. Of course the Playstation2 will inevitably come down in price, but so will DVD players. Personally, the Playstation2's ability to play DVD's will probably put me in the market for one for my currently DVD-less home, but only because the DVD feature will give me an excuse for the wife as to why I'm buying it.
Re:PS2 - Not worth it (Score:4)
Official PlayStation 2 Release: October 26/2000 at a price of $299 USD.
$299 for a DVD player with digital sound (Dolby 5.1), FireWire, USB, game controller, 3.5" drive bay, backwards compatibility with PSX games, and an intitial selection of more than 30 games, [scea.com] including Unreal Tournament. (There are only about 7 obscure PS1 games which won't play. All current DVDs including the Matrix do play.) Here's the list of games:
Consumers can find the following titles in October at more than 20,000 retail locations
(listed in alphabetical order):
More than 10 additional titles are expected to be shipped in November and at least 9 titles in December, totaling more than 50 PlayStation 2-specific software titles in market by the holidays.
November 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
December 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
First quarter of 2001 titles include (listed in alphabetical order):
First quarter of 2001 titles continued (listed in alphabetical order):
--
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:2)
If MS successfully releases the XBox, say before next Christmas, how many kids do you think are going to ask Santa/Mom/Dad for one compared to how many ask for a PS2, Dreamcast or Dolphin?
I for one won't be putting my money on the Xbox...as a matter of fact, I WILL be buying a PS/2.
Now I'll admit that Sony was the newcomer with the Playstation, but at the time the PS was way ahead of the competition [SuperNES] at the time, and they had great games and it was stable. MS *might* be able to get some good games, but I honestly don't have much faith in them developing a STABLE platform. And if the kids have problems with it, they won't play with it. And if Johnny doesn't like his XBox, his friends aren't terribly likely to want one then either.
Ender
Not dedicated hardware - firmware (Score:3)
It still decodes in software, it's just that the software is in ROM, not on the memory card.
BBK
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:3)
- Standards-compliant PC hardware.
- Fixed form the same as a console.
- Consistent C++ programming language with no major differences (easy to port to from PC).
- Stellar graphics hardware from NVidia, especially at TV resolutions.
- A groundbreaking amount of voices on the soundcard.
If you were a developer and got a chance to play with this toy, would you turn it down? PS2 is good and all, but to say XBox is going to be bad because "it's using standard parts" is, in your words "so damned lazy".
Re:PS2 - Not worth it (Score:3)
Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore, published and developed by Tecmo
I liked this game better when I played it on Dreamcast six months ago. And it even had better, less jagged graphics then. New costumes though...
Eternal Ring, published by Agetec and developed by From Software
Evergrace, published by Agetec and developed by From Software
FantaVisionÔ , published by SCEAM
I have a really hard time even telling these games apart. Fantavision is such a yawn-fest that some places are requiring you buy the game to get the system.
Gun Griffon Blaze, published by Working Designs and developed by Game Arts
Wow, a 2D shooter with 3D graphics. Where have I seen this before?
Kessen, published by Electronic Arts and developed by Koei
It's Romance of the Three Kingdoms with graphics ripped out of Shogun. Neat idea, but Americans hate these kinds of games. Myself included.
Ridge Racer V, published and developed by Namco
I think I played this game a couple years ago, when it was called R4. Nice shiney, jagged, plastic cars though. Think I'll go back to F355, a superior game in every imaginable way.
Street Fighter® EX3, published and developed by Capcom
I think it's been pretty much established that this game is crap. It was ported from a PSX-based arcade machine. And 3D street fighter was a bad idea to begin with...
Summoner, published by THQ and developed by Volition, Inc
Wow, they fixed the jaggies...to bad about the game itself though...
Tekken Tag Tournament, published and developed by Namco
I think when this game was called Tekken 3 it...oh fudge it...
Unreal Tournament, published by Infogrames and developed by Epic Games
Very nice tech demo. Really shows off what the machine can do with a one year old PC game. The lack of a modem means you'll be playing with yourself though... Kinda guts the whole concept of this game.
I'll stop there, it's getting silly. My point is, the games just aren't worth the $400 (system, game, memory card, retailer gouging, etc) price of entry. Especially when Dreamcast is keeping me more than busy enough.
Stop with the "hard to program" comments already! (Score:2)
Is DirectX easy to use from a programmer's point of view? Is the Win32 API? MFC? C++? X11? No, no, no, no, and no. The PS1 may have been a bitch at first too, but who cares when there are great games like Gran Turismo 2.
Re:Amiga (Score:2)
Neither was the C64, which also appeared in his list.
I think what he meant to say was "this only happens in FIXED platforms". That is, platforms whose hardware capabilities remain constant or nearly constant over time. Consoles certainly fit that bill, as do long-lived proprietary computer/OS platforms like the C64, the Amiga, the Atari series, and others (if I left out your favorite, don't flame me).
PSX (Score:2)
Where did the acronym PSX come from? The PS makes sense, but what does the X mean?
Good (Score:2)
Good, that'll save me some time. It's always best to install Linux on a clean hard drive.
--
Re:Why build for the Xbox??? (Score:2)
1) There is no reason for a console company to open source their SDK. After all, it's been pointed out way too many times that they simply don't make any money off the console itself, as in hardware, and sometimes even take a loss. Sure, Sony makes some games, but their real money comes from licensing the SDK and putting their <patented>Stamp of Approval</patented> on the games. It's not the consumers (directly anyways) that they make the real money from, it's the Squaresofts, Capcoms, and Konamis. By open sourcing the SDK, they would risk the potential of having another SDK or even modified SDK released, and that could be trouble even if they drag the people through court.
2) Games don't translate well (usually) from console to PC or the other way around. Sure, you could play Diablo 2 on a console, but the die hard gamers play it on PC. Why? Because that little controller doesn't do the game justice, I mean, how are you going to use any hotkeys? I'd imagine it's tuff to get far without being able to 1-9 hotkey those potions of health and mana. And on the other side of the fence, people on consoles get games because they aren't generally as complex, key wise, and it's just "Pop it in and play" and when you're pissed at that wyvern on level 7 for killing you for the hundreth time you just shut it off. There are some really involved console games, but the majority are fast action button crunching fun! Not learn 500 key combinations so that you can do that jump-spin-switch to railgun in midair-frag all while grabbing that extra health pak and landing on a moving platform-press hotkey for taunt and laugh at your oppenent move. They are different platforms for entertainment.
The X-box is not as clean as you think. (Score:3)
But that is beside the point, as I'm not sure the existance of the Net Yarouse really helped moved the Playstation all that much (I never owned a PS, but will be getting a PS2).
As for the X-box points you make however, you have a number of flawed assumptions.
As far as being ahead in performance - from the numbers, sure, it sounds like the X-Box must be miles ahead of published specs for the PS2, the Dreamcast, and the Gamecube. However we all know how specs can lie, right? You take a standard PC platform with a few custom chips and all of the various bottlenecks like memory and PCI bus, against three systems stuffed to the gills with high-bandwith buses, and vastly more customized chips. I'm not saying the X-box will not be more powerful but it might not be the leap you'd think from the numbers.
Also, I have to say that all of the X-box movies I've seen (pretty much all from Daily Radar [dailyradar.com]) have really left me cold. They do not seem to show much going on, and simply look rather bland. That could definatly just be a problem with the demo, but long before the PS2 came out I was seeing movies of stuff generated by the system that impressed me a lot more.
Ethernet is the one thing I'll agee on you with. Sony was silly not to include it in the box, though I think they have a pretty good chance at a high sell-though rate on the HD/Ethernet adaptor.
Now about the "no goofy graphic chip to learn". Yes, that is true for games that use DirectX. But will those be system seller games? I have my doubts. The real coders will, in fact be figuring out how to write DIRECTLY to the new chip nVidia is developing for the system, thus they WILL have to learn a new "goofy graphics chip" in order to produce good games. Don't believe me? Read this review [dailyradar.com] with Michael Abrash from the Xbox technology group. One of the telling things he says, and I quote, is:
"The coolest thing about my job is that Xbox is a fixed platform. Performance is my favorite thing, and for the first time since the original 4.77 MHz PC, I can actually justify taking the time to understand things down to the metal and figure out how to really optimize, because the machine is never going to change."
So as you can see, there are developers that will be programming as far down as they can go, they will take some time to understand the chip. I'm not saying that's bad - I'm just saying the X-box turns out to be little different than a console with a good library.
Now as far as it being more expensive, who can say? I'd personally bet it comes out at $300 just because it pretty much has to. But, I also wouldn't be surprised to see $400. Either one might be real trouble if the Gamecube is coming out about the same time for a smaller price. In a war of FUD, don't you think Nintendo could trump even MS and the X-box?
And for worries even from developers using the system, try out the interview [dailyradar.com] with Scott Miller from 3D Realms. He has some serious doubts about the X-box being so close to the PC as well.
Rambus uses less pins so it's cheaper. (Score:4)
The N64 uses an early form of RDRAM as well, one of the first uses of the technology.
It's not that it's bad technology, just misapplied to PC's when supply was not availible,and managed by a company with a overzealous legal department.
BBK
Re:PS2 - Not worth it (Score:2)
Add into it that this $299.99 DVD Player also has an expansion bay for HDD/Ethernet... has builtint Firewire/USB... can load software... has memory cards, controllers, plays a huge market of PS1 games.....
The system is well worth it as an alternative to a DVD player, even if no PS2 specific game titles ever existed. No doubt there will be a ROM update, a memory card image, or a CDROM for it soon enough that will have webtv-like software...
Get over it people. I was a hardcore enough Nintendo fan to stick to my N64 (and older ones) through all other systems. I _never_ bought a PS1. But even _I_ have to admit that this system is the thing to buy.
Re:Why stop? Here's why... (Score:2)
1. Because it's new, obviously, and therefore there is a lack of developers with PS2 experience
But is that a reason for a programmer who already knows Windows to never trying writing code for Linux? Of course not. The PS2 is hard to program for, yes, but that's true of anything new. Wanna-be-techies are using the "hard to program" issue as fuel against the PS2, which is misplaced.
A guitar is hard to play, too, if you don't know how to play guitar. I submit this as evidence that there will never be any good guitar players.
Why the PS/2 is a failure (Score:2)
Huh? Oh, you mean that OTHER PS2... bah!
There are important differences between the two! (Score:4)
The second important difference to note is that Sony completely screwed up the marketing/promotion side for betamax. Sony actually cut back marketing expenditures when sales initially rose and failed to raise them when vhs started making headway. But if you've seen any of Sony's marketing efforts recently, you know there's been a lot of change.
The industry is a different place from what it was back in 1975. PS2 might still fail, but if it does, it won't be because it too much resembled betamax.
Re:Sony... (Score:2)
Re:Epiphany (Score:3)
That's what woman is for...
what about nintendo? (Score:3)
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:2)
You missed an important point in the article. Under Sony's current scheme, if I want to write a game I have to pay them a lot of money, like $25000. Under the X-box scheme, all I have to do is get a compiler. MS compilers are typicly $100-$1200 depending on who you are and how many features you want. The "professional" version is usually somewhere in the middle of that range, and is probably what most game developers would use. Also, the MS architecture will be open like a PC, so you could probably port gcc to it and not pay *anything* for the compiler.
Now, assuming Sony doesn't change their business model, which one is going to have more games written for it?
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
At any rate, its funny that you ask "why wouldn't I stick to the successful past of PSX and N64"? After slagging Sega (who deserve it, somewhat)... The Genesis was king of the consoles in its time, just proving that a successful past doesn't count for _that_ much in the console world.. It helps get developers pumped (especially when something is as successful as the original PSX), but doesn't guarantee success.
Its also generally agreed that Sony's pretty much botched the roll out of the PS2, which may hurt its long terms sales once all the hardcore gamers buy theirs...
Re:4 Consoles, 2 years....who will be around in 6? (Score:2)
Only three consoles have been real certifiable hits on that level: The Atari 2600, the original NES, and the Sony Playstation. (You could make an argument for the Genesis and the SNES, but the SNES started late and the Genesis died early.)
It was too! (Score:2)
Believe me, if I hook up a decent quality 15 year old Betamax up side by side with a modern VHS VCR, the quality difference will be clearly visible. If you look at a really good Betamax it will approach SVHS quality.
The failure of Beta was part technical (lack of long tapes) and part marketing. Don't be fooled by "myths" about it's quality though--there is a good reason that Betamax VCRs still sell in the hundreds of dollars on Ebay.
Interesting ... (Score:2)
I mean, the Atari, Intellivision, and (later) ColecoVision -- and going to the Aladdin's Castle at the mall to play stuff like Donkey Kong and Pac Man and (my fav) Tron -- were staples of my later "kid" years.
I remember, too, picking up some cheesy pong game at Radio Shack. It was basically pong and some weird shoot-the-TV screen gun game.
And, of course, I remember many days in Sears playing the Sears-branded version of Atari.
Wow.
Re:it all depends on SOFTWARE! (Score:2)