Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend 121
securitas writes "The New York Times Technology's Michel Marriott reports (free reg. req.) on the growing trend of developers making Xbox-exclusive games, bypassing the Sony PS2 and Nintendo GameCube. Microsoft is 'playing catch-up on the console' with some notable examples of Xbox-exclusive (or Xbox-first) console games that include Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, Advent Rising and Full Spectrum Warrior. Marriott interviews Todd Hollenshead (id), Mark Rein (Epic), J. Allard (Microsoft), and Donald Mustard (Majesco) among others that include Sony and THQ. The question is, will gamers follow the developers' preferences? Sony's dominance in the next game console wars could be toppled if they do. 'If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change.'"
Microsoft Borg icon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:1)
Halo was HIGHLY touted for the PC... Only to be snatched away when MS drove a stake through the heart of Bungie and had them join the realms of the damned.
I see Doom 3 is listed as being for the XBox, at least first. (I had heard somewhere it might be exclusive but I can't remember if it was on a reputable site.)
I think the reason this has gained attention is the PS2 etc... have never had an exclusive which was swiped from the PC. The XBox has.
Nothing on Ear
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:1)
Half-Life
Deus Ex
Red Faction
Unreal Tournament
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but will also point out that this icon already gets used all the time when Microsoft does the exact same thing it's competitors do and everyone in the industry has to do (e.g., wmp included with windows is "borg" while iTunes coming with mac os is not).
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:2)
I digress, however. Microsoft have a monopoly because the US judicial system and the EEC equivalent have determined this as a finding of law, by due judicial process. Therefore, to assert that Microsoft is not a monopoly implies that either
a) You don't recognise the US/european legal systems, thus making you some kind of anarchist
or
b) You work for Microsoft or SCO
or
c)
Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:2)
Sorry Bill (Score:3, Funny)
A growing trend... or just involving Windows devs? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no surprise to see this, and it's not really a trend, it's just a natural side effect of the X-Boxen's nature.
Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a little ignorant about Xbox development but it seems to me that if Microsoft were a little better about letting people easily do hobby development on the Xbox they'd truly have a good foundation all around for game geeks, both on the development side and on the playing side.
Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess would be because the XBox is a fixed set of hardware, with known capabilities. If I'm an XBox developer, I don't have to worry about making my game take advantage of Gee-Whiz Blip-Texture-Buffered Cell Shading (TM) that currently only exists on the Radeon 10K+1/2. If I choose to port my game from XBox to Windows, though, I'll be competing with games that do exploit these features, and I'll get a reputation of being "behind the curve."
Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de (Score:3, Interesting)
You have the right reason, although your justification behind i
Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de (Score:2)
Of course, if you don't put in the effort, you won't get the reward. If you're not sure whether it's worth it, watch what happens as Far Cry, Half Life 2 and Doom 3 obliterate the PC gaming market for the rest of the year. Money will talk.
Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de (Score:2)
Microsoft makes money on every game sold. The typical home-grown game programmer is not going to give MS their cut.
Why subsidize the hardware, if you don't make money on the software?
Quake/Unreal (Score:1)
It would almost seem like Unreal would go with Playstation II and Doom 3 would go with XBox.
If those games ever caught on with the console/home crowd like they did on the PC...
Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? NO!1 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:2)
I think as the price of digital TVs comes down, and the price of consoles remains in the $150-300 range (counting the launch prices), we'll see more developers gravitate in that direction. After all, why would I spend thou
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:2)
Actually only about $500-1000. Still a lot more than an Xbox. But saying that you need to spend $2k on a computer to run HL2 or Doom 3 is just wrong.
An Athlon XP 2800+ with 512MB and new motherboard can be had for little more than $300. Add in a $200 video card and you're all set. Even if you built from scratch instead of upgrading, it would only be about an additional $400 more (OS+har
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:2)
In Australian dollars you could buy a 2500+ ($100), mainboard ($100), Radeon 9600XT ($250), case + CD/RW ($100), HDD ($100) and monitor (if you don't already have one ($200). That's about $600 USD for a system that is quite adequate for running any game on the shelves today. And $200 of that is the cost of the monitor, which is a buy-once item much like the more expensive TV set you need to buy for an X-Box.
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:1)
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:1)
Oh, did I mention that this is on alpha, un-optimized, debug code?
Also, control wise, consoles suck for FPS. Give me a mouse and keyboard anyday.
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:2)
They're doing a special re-write just for XBox with overly simplified graphics.
It won't be close because DX8 can't get close to doing any of the lighting or shading features incorporated into Doom3, and the CPU/GPU lineup in the XBox doesn't have the grunt to handle the sheer number of polygons the Doom3 engine pumps out. The absolute best quality you could
Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:1)
non registration required link (Score:4, Informative)
NYT/Google: Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend (Score:2)
That's weird. The original post had the Google link in it (see below). But it didn't have the links to all the game sites - didn't have time to add them.
It makes sense for developers who are already familiar with PC game development to work on Xbox console games. That is not a trend in itself and will not overthrow the reigning console king, Sony.
What is interesting is that many highly-anticipated and benchmark-setting games are Xbox-exclusive or Xbox-first. Besides those mentioned in the article, the
The real reason for the port (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft made a smart choice when they used standard PC components and DirectX. All the games mentioned will also be available for Windows. From the publishers perspective, it's a no-brainer. Spend a few weeks to port the code (as opposed to months for GC/PS2) for the Xbox to take into account its controller, and maybe XBox Live, and you end up with a 10 million plus market to exploit.
Even though the margins are smaller, some of these games might have slipped under the radar as PC games. On the Xbox (and consoles in general), the volumes are much larger.
However, the article also mentions how this should carry over to the XBox 2. With the rumored PowerPC Architecture and lack of standard hard-drive, these ports would be on the same level as the other consoles. Perhaps XNA is intended to fill this gap?
Re:The real reason for the port (Score:2)
Obviously still a no-brainer for the publisher, but limiting PC games to the confines of a console seems like a sure-fire way to make sure no one bothers to buy the PC game.
Re:The real reason for the port (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result, the mediocre games get a poor treatment just to get it out there for free. It really becomes a self-fufilling prophecy like you s
Re:The real reason for the port (Score:2)
Their development tools (environment, compiler, etc) and libraries (TCP/FS/etc) have worked on PowerPC chips for years. The only technology they'd have to create, is implementing the DirectX runtime libraries for their new hardware and embedded OS.
And they'll have to do that anyway to adapt ATI's custom hardware/drivers to the particulars of their box.
XNA is, imo, a larger-scope embracing and extending of the existing trend. Instead of just having a development
Re:The real reason for the port (Score:2)
The Xbox is a dream to develop for compared to the PS2. T
Re:The real reason for the port (Score:2)
I see both sides (Score:4, Interesting)
2. I don't belive that it is a good thing to have one company dominate the gaming market (ex. Nintendo of the 1980's). Monopolistic motives drive more than just MS. I also believe that MS's development tools will make Xbox games easier to program. That may be the X factor for many developers.
So I'm willing to sit back and evaluate which next generation console offers the best technology, best games, for the best price. Since I don't have the money to waste on more than one console I'
Re:I see both sides (Score:1)
Heck most of those games are STILL better than almost everything that's come out in recent memory. Even GTA traces it's roots to that age(and apart from incremental improvements, not much has changed).
Meanwhile, Microsoft dominance gave us Windows ME and an NT that could be crashed with an ICMP packet.
Both Sony and Nintendo have a track record of continuing to release quality products(albeit at a slowe
Re:I see both sides (Score:3, Interesting)
The exact same. After reading "Game Over" about Nintendo's rise and fall in the 1980s and 1990s, I can tell you there's not much more that company could have done to prevent competition. Nintendo was a monopolistic juggernaut who controlled all licesning and the entire market.
It's not like Sony and Nintendo are saints here. Sony entered for pretty much the same reasons as MS - to gain entry into
Re:I see both sides (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't dispute that, what's in dispute is what the company did from a consumer standpoint with their effective monopoly. And what they did was release some of the best games ever and leverage it for "quality control" purposes. Yes, crap came out, but a lot less crap than comes out today. Gaming prices weren't much higher then than they are now, and they used FAR more expensive media. The SNES and NES were both
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
Microsoft meanwhile, used their position to push utter garbage onto the Desktop and Server markets. Only fixed things when absolutely forced(and still not always then),
Re:I see both sides (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but I rarely pay even $50 for games unless it's something I know I'll still be playing in a decade. I tend to rent or buy 'em used and cheap.
Oh, and nowhere near $100, try $70 of todays dollars for a $50 game. Which btw is about the pricepoint most N64 games came out at, long after Nintendo lost their monopoly. They were expensive because of the cartridge medium, not because Nintendo priced higher than people do today.
And one could argue that Sony or Nintend
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
$50 in 1980 = $113 in 2004
$50 in 1985 = $87 in 2004
$50 in 1990 = $71.65 in 2004
$50 in 1995 = $61.45 in 2004
Now, simultaneously prices for what made up cartridges were dropping. So, a $50 nintendo game was actually quite e
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
Don't beleive me? I've got a room full of boxed 2600 carts and NES games, many still with their price tags.
"2600 MsPac Man - Hills Dept store - $29.99"
"2600 Pitfall - Kay-Bee - $19.99"
"NES Punch Out - Woolworths - $32.00"
Another great source is the ads in the back of video game magazines. The highest cartridge price that I can think of is Chrono Trigger for the SNES - $70 in 1995. (Neo Geo doesn't count)
and I won'
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
Actually, one of Sony's prime motivations was to kick Nintendo in the jimmy after Nintendo fucked Sony over by going with somebody else for the Super Nintendo CD system. Oh, and they let Sony know by announcing it at E3, or a similar technology expo.
"Revolutionaries at Sony" is an excellent companion book to Game Over. You can tell, however, that it was written by a Japane
Re:I see both sides (Score:1)
It was all out of spite. Sure.
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
Well of course money had something to do with it.
However, Sony was an analog company who was quite happy to supply Nintendo with CD players and stay out of the market. Never underestimate the fury of a Japanese corporation scorned.
Re:I see both sides (Score:1)
Wow. I just re-read my first paragraph and boy did I ramble on. Instead of editing it, I'm just going to talk about it down here a bit. K, I'm done.
Anyhoo, I agree, it may have had something to do with it... but I'm more inclined to think Sony would have jumped in the pool sooner or later anyway. There is more profit to be made t
Re:I see both sides (Score:2)
I disagree; there's money to be made in home theater equipment, too, but I don't see Nintendo selling receivers any time soon. Sony specifically decided to spite Nintendo. The fact that they made all the right choices, and caught Nintendo at a perilous time, was pure serendipity.
Go read 'Revolutionaries at Sony' for an inside view of this process.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:1)
when will it end (Score:4, Insightful)
It *will* end soon (Score:5, Insightful)
When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed
By my best estimates, about the same time gaming became synonymous with "first-person shooters" (and very similar games). Most of the games that everyone seems to be so hot about these days look to me like just YAFPS--maybe they've got graphics a bit cooler, and physics a bit better, but they're all just rehashes of PiD, Marathon, Wolfenstein, and Doom, when you get right down to it. Most of them don't even have the kind of story that Marathon had--though I've heard that Half-Life does actually have *some* story to it (haven't played it, so I can't really judge).
It will pass, though. It may not be until the technology slows down a bit, but people will start to realize that it's really not *that* cool to have whatever the latest-and-greatest 3D features are, and start to think about the difference in gameplay and story. We will see a gaming renaissance, and I'd put it about 3-5 years down the road.
Dan Aris
Re:It *will* end soon (Score:2)
So anyway, yeah. Personally, I think Marathon is hugely under-rated, Half-Life is hugely over-rate
Re:It *will* end soon (Score:2)
Re:It *will* end soon (Score:1)
By my best estimates, about the same time gaming became synonymous with "first-person shooters" (and very similar games).
On the consoles, I think it was around the time Final Fantasy VII was released.
Re:It *will* end soon (Score:2)
No, that was when RPGs started becoming more about story, at the expense of gameplay.
There's a difference ;-)
Dan Aris
Re:when will it end (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those things are only possible with the 'technology' in the Xbox. Yes, the PS2 has a hard drive add-on, but you can't put a game out knowing that people have it. (Except for the version of Final Fantasy that comes with it)
The two things that my Gamecube and PS2 owning friends drool over when they finally get to experience them...the hard-drive, and of course Live.
I never need to search around for the right memory card. And yes last time you are at my house playing a game, your characters are still there. (Why would I delete them?) YES those are real people that are shooting your plane down right now.
That is technology that the Xbox has- that developers can use to create great games. Most of the people that play down the importance of things like on-line gaming (Live) are the ones that have never used it. For the rest of the people that do use it, it becomes very, very important.
*If you feel the need to say "but the neXtbox won't have a hard-drive" please refrain, until we see what the specs really are.
Re:when will it end (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amazing that everynight I get to play against the best players in the world while lounging on my sofa.
Re:when will it end (Score:3, Interesting)
Voice Comm, no HPBs, friends lists, out-of-game invites, etc.
Xbox Live is a glorified matching service that's worth paying for. There really is no higher praise.
Re:when will it end (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:when will it end (Score:2, Insightful)
* speed of loading
What about games like Metroid Prime on the Gamecube which have *no* loading times whatsoever?
* speed of saves
I haven't noticed any speed issues with saving since the Playstation.
* number of saves
Ok, so I can have a billion saves. Thats nice, but what if I want to use my save at a friends house?
* amount of user-defined information
Not exactly sure what you're talking about
Re:when will it end (Score:2)
Number of saves can be VERY important. Try playing Deus Ex: Invisible War. First, the saves are HUGE. Second, you might want a lot of them, so you can go back and change your mind later on about decisions you made earlier. I noticed that I had ~125 saves from that game alone.
You don't think that downloaded content is a 'killer feature' and that's fine. But after I finished Splinter
Re:when will it end (Score:2)
The Gamecube trades storage space for loading speed, but you won't see very many cut scenes. The PS2 has abysmal loading times, for reasons I can't fathom.
I've noticed plenty, especially on the PS2. GTAIII+VC are slow, as is Pro Evo, TH:UG and GT3. Also bear in mind that game saves are kept deliberately small in order to allow a reasonable amo
Re:when will it end (Score:2)
speed of loading
Barely anyone, including Microsoft themselves, use the caching abilities of the Xbox hard drive, thus leaving many games to have near PS2-ish load times. Ninja Gaiden does seem to use the hard drive, as it has about 5 seconds of loading when it does load, but most other games go on for 15 seconds or more. This is especially true of Microsoft published games, and if ANYONE should be using the hard drive how it is supposed to be, it should be Microsoft. Way for them to set an example.
O
Re:when will it end (Score:2)
Well- if anyone does NOT have room on their hard-drive for saves, it won't be because of music that was ripped. The Xbox uses this great new concept of 'partitions'...it's okay Chumpy...I'm sure you were just testing the rest of us.
Re:when will it end (Score:2)
A hard drive
Re:when will it end (Score:1)
What are you smoking? MANY games use downloadable content. You can download additional levels or items or multi-player maps, etc...
Have you ever played GTA with it? Man, that is the coolest feature! Driving around with your own soundtrack...
And they have pleanty of good games with good gameplay out there. Stop hating XBox just cuz they are MS and open your e
Re:Oh yes, nintendo knows how. (Score:2)
Each company has their own priority? Yes, to make money. And they all work their ways to do that. Microsoft, it appears, will be porting PC games. MS does offer quality games and isn't just advertising and hype. I would say PS2 has far more advertising and hype of far more marginal games, but again, it uses marketing to make money. And Nintendo's games may be the cat's pajamas, but if no one in the U.S. is buyi
Independent Xbox Games a No-Show (Score:5, Informative)
I'm blatantly biased [dejobaan.com] here, but I'd be thrilled if Microsoft were to make overtures to the independent game developer community. Some noises were made along those lines in November, 2000 [microsoft.com], but they didn't follow up tangibly. As an independent developer, I don't feel drawn towards Xbox development the way I did, Pocket PC development. In that arena, MS gave the development tools away for free [microsoft.com], (something I always felt Palm should have done to keep Pocket PC from gaining market share from 2001 onward).
Xbox development is said to be technically similar to Windows desktop development, so from a development standpoint, I imagine that authors of 95/2K/XP software would feel comfortable developing for the console. Further, 3d engines such as Torque [garagegames.com] and Conitec's 3DGS [conitec.net] make it possible for modest-sized groups to develop popular titles [darkhorizons-lore.com]. But both the developers of such engines, and the developers of games, face restrictions imposed by the console manufacturer(s). Conitec's Doug Poston states his case -- the manufacturers make the cost-of-entry too high for smaller studios [conitecserver.com].
Does the manufacturer-imposed barrier-to-entry for console development raise the quality of games [lucasarts.com], or does it mean fewer interesting titles [ign.com] and less experimentation [indiegamejam.com]? (I suppose the businessman-side of me would be thrilled if larger studios abandoned the desktop PC [lucasarts.com], leaving the market open. But somehow, I think that'd be a phyrric victory for all of us.)
Barriers to entry... (Score:2)
The Great Videogame Crash was caused by the fact that anyone with a few bucks could publish a horrible game in a box that looked like all the others. People got tired of sifting through the endless, repetitive crap.
The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" (and the corresponding tech that prevented any old Joe from making an NES cart) literally saved the industry - first by raising the quality bar, and second by providing a source of income that all
So... (Score:1)
More than me, at least. (Score:2)
What Sky? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people exclusive titles are bad for are the people that don't own multiple consoles, but now it just means that if you want to buy a console you have to make a choice doesn't it? Isn't choice good? If you think that all games should get ported to all systems please tell me how that would be any better than there only being a single console standing? Neither Nintendo or Sony are going anywhere for awhile, it is a long road before either one of them gets busted apart by MS.
Early strategy paying out (Score:3, Interesting)
Allard was specifically referring to the hard drive, which I think we'd all agree has gone quite underutilized. Full Spectrum though is an excellent example though of how this strategy played out with Xbox Live. The US Army merely gave the developers of Full Spectrum a list of requirements. It had to be on console, it had to be able to be multiplayer, and it had to have realistic "trainable" AI. The Xbox is a no brainer here, particularly since when they developed FS Sony Online and barely transpired. I suppose one could speculate that the Army had a geographical preference ("Made" in America).
The other games listed are exclusive probably because of the hardware requirements or the ease in developing for the Xbox in relation to the PC. Not surprisingly, games using PC engines (like Splinter Cell, which uses the Unreal engine) have also been exclusive or at least came out well before a PS2 and Gamecube version. Another unsurprising characteristic that Xbox exclusives have shared is that they've almost all been western developers. The exception to this are the early Xbox Sega titles, which was probably just Sega pissed off at Sony. Tecmo/Team Ninja has been Xbox exclusive, but I think it's obvious that someone has a lot of extra money in their pockets for that deal
Which makes you wonder why the guys who developed these strategies in the inception of the Xbox have almost all been fired and replaced. I wonder what that bodes for Xbox2. If hardware is the key for Microsoft exclusives, then is giving Sony an extra year to buffer their system specs as the Xbox1 did really that smart?
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:1)
M$ formula
--------------
sell more xbox exclusive games = sell more xbox consoles
Sony's formula
--------------
sell any ps2 games + ps2 exclusive games to Japan = sell more ps2 consoles
You forgot something (Score:2)
Where, exactly, does one of the most profitable exclusive in the history of video gaming fall into your formula? You know, that little license called GTA, which Sony paid an "unspecified sum" for (read: a gazillion dollars). Or, should I say "$ony?" Oh yeah, that other one too, the one in which $ony very nearly bought out another company to get the exclusive...um, gee what is it, oh yes, Final Fantasy. That's it.
Please, retrea
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, so the story goes, Team Ninja took the source code to DoA 2, which on the PS2 looked worse than the Dreamcast version, ported it enough to get it to compile on the Xbox, and were astounded to see it going at over one hundred frames per second.
On the Xbox, they can create somebody's clothes as clothes, not as textures, with bump-mapping so that silk looks like silk, rough-weave cotton looks like rough-weave cotton, embroidery looks like embroidery, and so on.
The PS2 might have the potential to outstrip the Xbox, visually speaking, but in reality, nobody can actually get the damn thing to do it.
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:3, Interesting)
Asides:
DoA3 vs DoA2: Hardcore. [ign.com] Note especially Lei Fang's dress.
Here's the story I referenced above, actually:
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:2)
That is, yet. Or at least, if PS2 developers decide to take the time to try and do so. Why spend a couple extra million dollars trying super refine your code to look prettier than the Xbox when you could just bring it over to the Xbox, have it look good on the Xbox, and then make it look 'nicer than anything previously released on the Xbox.' (Which is what a lot of revie
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:2)
Exactly!
Have you played Ninja Gaiden? Damn. DAMN.
Of course, what Tecmo realizes is that it's not just the graphics, it's the animations.
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:1)
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:2)
Ninja Gaiden has it all. Graphics, animation, sound, and, well, attitude. There's just something...neat about watching this huge, giant, evil demon beastie, all fangs and tenticles and dripping venom show up and start screaming at Ryu, and all he does is slowly reach back, draw his sword, and settle into his stance.....
Re:Early strategy paying out (Score:2)
I think the money from the millions of games they have sold on Xbox was probably enough. It can be pretty nice to be the only competant fighting game developer on a specific console. DOA3 (on Xbox) outsold Tekken4 (on PS2) and VF4 (non-Evo, also on PS2).
Is it not complmetely obvious.... (Score:1)
But honestly... xbox is getting these titles because of it's nature, it's much easier to take a game developed for the pc, and bring it over (either as a port, or side development project) than it is to port it to
console exclusive? (Score:2, Interesting)
Like the 1950s (Score:1)
Re:Like the 1950s (Score:1)
2) Insert rant re: preference for single-console development with later ports over concurrent multi-console development(read "lowest common denominator development") here
3)
4) Profit!
Re:Like the 1950s (Score:2)
I fully expect to see Doom 3 running on my Sega Dreamcast, or else...else...I'll sue someone! Yeah!
Real or Marketing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Any shooting themselves in the foot potential? (Score:1, Interesting)
As far as XBox exclusivity, I see this as a potential cyclical issue: XBox trailed PS2 in release so naturally had better HW specs. If PS3's release sufficiently trails the XBox2, it will likely have better HW specs, etc. However, IF (emphasis on if) the rumers pan out regarding XBox2's lack of a harddrive and no 1st gen game compatibility, then all bets are
And yet... (Score:1)
The Unreal series on XBox, while original games...are shit.
Doom III? I'll take it on PC.
The other two mentioned I don't even care about.
When you have to pack a LAUNCH TITLE in with your system - when it's STILL the top selling game for your system - then you, my friends, are fucked for this generation.
Uh what? (Score:2)
The article contains false and misleading information attempting to prove a point. If you need to lie to prove a point, that makes you a politician, not a journalist.
Yeah sure, but is it too late? (Score:2)
Sure, perhaps MSFT has had a lack of XBox exclusive games since they launched when compared to the GC or PS2. And let's go along with the assumption that the games listed in the article ARE being released exclusively for the XBox (contrary to what others have already pointed out).
That being said, as the XBox is closing on it's life cycle (as evident by the flurry of activity surrounding XBox Next -- or whatever it will be called -- and the recent price drops/promotions) does exclusiv
Re:When oh when will the ps2 price drop come? (Score:1)