Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend 121

Posted by simoniker from the boxen-to-infinity dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend More

Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft Borg icon (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:27AM (#9007523)
    I've seen the Microsoft Borg icon used in places where I did not think it belonged, but this story perhaps is one that needs it added.

    • Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by p4ul13 ( 560810 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:34AM (#9007625) Homepage
      Both Sony and Nintendo bank on console exclusives, so there's nothing surprising or even underhanded about MS doing the same. I'm not typically a fan of MS products, but I can't fault them for this move.

      • Re:Microsoft Borg icon (Score:4, Interesting)

        by UWC ( 664779 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:30PM (#9009050)
        I think AtariAmarok might have been noting an apparent bias for the exact reason you cited. All consoles rely to some degree on exclusive titles. The columnist citing this trend in reference only to the XBox seems to be ignoring that very fact. And if that wasn't the original point of the post, then I'm claiming it as my own.
        • Think about the exclusives they've had though.

          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
      • I don't think anyone can really fault them for it. After all, they are a company and their only purpose is to make money. However, because of the relatively unique position that Microsoft holds (lots of money and no need to turn a profit right now) it can be pretty irritating for us PS2 and GC owners.
      • Both Sony and Nintendo bank on console exclusives, so there's nothing surprising or even underhanded about MS doing the same

        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).
        • Ahh, but the reason that it's only bad for MS to do this is because MS has a monopoly on the underlying platform and therefore hurts competitors like Real. Apple could bundle anything they like with OS ten and it wouldn't make a lick of difference because there would be absolutely no impact on the market. The only way Apple could influence the market right now is by changing the price or removing the iPod from the market.
          • Ok. I don't want to debate this as it's been done many times and is very offtopic. Suffice it to say that not all of us agree with your premise that there is a "monopoly" here, and without that none of the rest of your claims hold up.
            • Microsoft having a monopoly is *always* on topic here at Slashdot. From your number I would have thought you'd have noticed that by now.

              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)
              • Not sure if you're joking or trolling or what. Regardless, I think you'd have more luck with "The US Courts are all knowing on matter of technology; disagreeing with any court ruling makes you anti-american and an anarchist" on one of the threads about the dmca, or about patents or about piracy then you will in the games section.

  • A growing trend... or just involving Windows devs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 2Flower ( 216318 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:36AM (#9007642) Homepage
    I don't know about this. Most of the games being cited are Windows ports, or involve design studios that heavily work on Windows games. Of course they'd eyeball the X-Box, not because it holds some excusive domain they want access to, but because it's what they're familiar with; work on the machine is a lot easier to them than taking on the alien monstrosity known as the PS2 dev kit. A lot of them have ties to Microsoft through their windows work (see: Bioware) and thus are more likely to do a console game period when they know the hardware and have a relationship with the manufacturer already.

    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.
    • I agree. It would be much easier for Windows developers to make an Xbox game than it would be to the GC or PS2. What I do have difficulty grasping though is how a game can be made for the Xbox but NOT be made for Windows.

      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)

        by Prior Restraint ( 179698 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @12:14PM (#9008146)

        What I do have difficulty grasping though is how a game can be made for the Xbox but NOT be made for Windows.

        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."

        • 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."

          You have the right reason, although your justification behind i

          • In other words, it's harder to write for a more flexible platform, which Linux and open source coders could easily attest to I am sure.

            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.
      • If people do 'hobby development' on the Xbox, it could cause serious problems with the revenue stream.

        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?

  • 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)

    by thenerdgod ( 122843 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:38AM (#9007668) Homepage
    Let's look at that list. Doom3? What? Who cares? This list includes "games I'll buy for my PC, and that were easily portable to the XBox as a 'gimme' for developing for the PC" This is like saying "Final Fantasy franchise continues to by-pass XBox" or "Solaris continues to not run on my toaster".

    • Re:Oh, PC-oriented games bypassing the GameCube? N (Score:5, Informative)

      by drewmca ( 611245 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:55AM (#9007936)
      To run Doom 3 on a PC, you'll need a video card that costs more than an xbox. It may not be AS great on the xbox, but it will be close (because it's tuned to the console specifically). For a lot of people, that's pretty financially compelling. Also, Full Spectrum Warrior is not currently slated for Windows release. This game was designed from the ground up for xbox, specifically because the army wanted the developer to put together a simulation for the xbox (it's easier to deploy). It may eventually come to PC, but no word as yet.
      • Even more, if I upgrade my PIII computer to something that can play Doom 3, I'm looking at a (potentially) $2-3K system. For that same $2-3K, I can buy a low-end HDTV, an Xbox, component cables, and play Doom 3 at a nice resoution. This is all assuming that progressive scan is supported.

        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
        • Even more, if I upgrade my PIII computer to something that can play Doom 3, I'm looking at a (potentially) $2-3K system.

          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

          • That's overkill!

            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.
      • Actually, a PC version [fullspectrumwarrior.com] is slated for release.
      • The people that got the leaked alpha managed to get it to play at a reasonable frame rate on a GeForce 3 TI 500 at 800 by 600. A search on Froogle [google.com] shows that you can get one for $100 which is $40 less than an XBOX. Of course you could buy a newer card that is faster than a GF3 for less.

        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.
      • Actually, according to Carmack, the XBox version of Doom3 will be drastically different because the power just isn't there for Doom3 to work as it is.

        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
    • When given the choice between xbox and PC version of a game, more than likely the xbox version has DD5.1 support out of the box, and possibly xbox live. Doom3 has both, so it is a no brainer for me to get the xbox version, not to mention the fact I can play it on my 61" big screen also. In order for me to be able to play the PC version of doom3, I would have to spend easily $1000 on upgrading my 1.2ghz athlon and GF2 card to get an equal experience. Remember, coding for consoles allows them to optimize a

  • non registration required link (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:40AM (#9007704)
    catching up the console [nytimes.com]

    • 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)

    by Ian_Bailey ( 469273 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:40AM (#9007720) Homepage Journal
    While the analyst in the article is claiming its because of the Xbox's power, and a few developers mention its functionality, the real reason they're doing this is DirectX.

    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?
    • Yeah, except it seems to happen the other way around: they take a game for the XBox, and port it to the PC. That's how we end up with games like Halo for the PC (no cooperative multiplayer?) or Deus Ex 2 for the PC (where it's obvious that the interface was designed for something with 8 buttons, not a keyboard).

      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.
      • I think Microsoft and game developers are realizing that outside of a few special cases, PC games are not so hot for business. As it stands now a moderate success (250,000 units or so) on the XBox would probably make more money than a moderate success on the PC (probably closer to 100,000). Not to mention the testing becomes much easier with only one target platform.

        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
    • I don't know if Microsoft even needs XNA.

      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
    • I don't know that it's really DirectX that's the key. The Xbox hardware is just really easy to develop for. DirectX on the Xbox is similar to the PC API, but there are some significant differences. To use the hardware efficiently you need to take advantage of the fact that you're working on a known hardware configuration. UMA is one obvious difference. Also you don't need to check caps bits or HRESULTs because you know everything will just work.
      The Xbox is a dream to develop for compared to the PS2. T
    • Your right of course, microsot is leveraging their windows monopoly to gain yet another monopoly. They've doubled this up by using the proceeds from their windows monopoly to hold out until they can gain enough market share.

  • I see both sides (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CosmicDreams ( 23020 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:44AM (#9007784) Journal
    I am of two minds with next generation of consoles. 1. PS3 technology sounds really cool. I've chosen the playstation and PS2 during previous generations of consoles. I am comfortable with the PS2's controller and am adverse to changing consoles.

    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'
    • Nintendo and SEGA in the 80s/90s produced what many of us think of as the golden era of console gaming.

      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
      • What do you think the console Market would look like with MS in the position Nintendo was in in the late 80s?

        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

        • Nintendo was a monopolistic juggernaut who controlled all licesning and the entire market.

          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
          • Gaming prices weren't much higher then than they are now, and they used FAR more expensive media. The SNES and NES were both quality products as were all Nintendo original games. Yes, unfortunately, that $50 is near $100 in today's money. Which means that prices have come down thanks to competition (would you pay $90 for a GameCube game?).

            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),

            • would you pay $90 for a GameCube game?

              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
              • 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.

                $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

                • except that the average price for new games back between 1980 and 1985 was closer to $35.

                  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'

        • Sony entered for pretty much the same reasons as MS - to gain entry into a profitable market and to control the profitable market.

          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

          • Oh yea...you're absolutly right. Breaking into a new market to make money had nothing to do with it.

            It was all out of spite. Sure.

            • 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.

              • Wow. I just re-read my first responce. Man, that sounded harsh. I was going for sarcasm and missed. I may have cliped the target, but it was way off center. I appologize.

                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

                • 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)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:48AM (#9007846)
    If a game is available for the PC, how is it an Xbox exclusive again?

  • Yay! (Score:1)

    by ooPo ( 29908 )
    Yay! More exclusive first person shooters! However will anyone compete?

  • when will it end (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rabbot ( 740825 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @12:17PM (#9008197)
    When will people stop using "technology" as a reason for one system being superior to another? When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed. I'll stick with Nintendo all the way. They know what makes good games, not just what appeals to the sheep that only know about which system has the faster processor. The difference is negligable as far as technology goes.

    • It *will* end soon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by danaris ( 525051 ) <danaris@mac . c om> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:18PM (#9008909) Homepage

      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

      • Most PC gamers have never heard of Marathon and its two sequels. What I find funny is that they then come out with games for Windows that have features that Marathon had years and years before. Half-Life has a good story? Been there. Environmental sound effects instead of cheesy music? Marathon 2, done that. Unreal 2004 has voice communication built-in? You could do that in Marathon in 1995 over a LAN.

        So anyway, yeah. Personally, I think Marathon is hugely under-rated, Half-Life is hugely over-rate
      • You forget though that every now and then there is a very innovative game which sparks a lot of clones. Take bf1942 for example. EXTREMELY innovative gameplay, and now everybody and their sister is copying it. So while there is a lot of FPS drek out there now, there are certainly a few gems to keep the genre fresh.

      • 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).

        On the consoles, I think it was around the time Final Fantasy VII was released.

    • Re:when will it end (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:53PM (#9009369) Homepage
      Well, the hard drive in the Xbox is 'technology' and it makes a huge difference.

      • speed of loading
      • speed of saves
      • number of saves
      • amount of user-defined information
      • downloaded content
      • knowing that everyone has room for the save
      • custom soundtracks

      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)

        by VividU ( 175339 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @03:03PM (#9010499)
        Nicely put. Xbox Live players know that there's no going back.

        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)

          by *weasel ( 174362 )
          Who'd have ever guessed that it would be Microsoft of all companies to get a multiplayer gaming service right?

          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)

        by rabbot ( 740825 )
        If a game needs a hard drive and net access you can usually find me playing it on my computer.

      • Re:when will it end (Score:2, Insightful)

        by adler187 ( 448837 )
        Well, the hard drive in the Xbox is 'technology' and it makes a huge difference.

        * 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
        • If you want to bring a save to a friend's house, you can still put the save on a memory card, and make it transportable.

          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

        • What about games like Metroid Prime on the Gamecube which have *no* loading times whatsoever?

          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 haven't noticed any speed issues with saving since the Playstation.

          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

      • 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

        • How are they supposed to know that gamer X hasn't filled his Xbox hard drive with soundtracks? It isn't imposible, you know. It can be assumed the majority have room on their hard drives for saves, but it cannot be assumed that EVERYONE with an Xbox does.

          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.

      • All I ever used my X-Box's hard drive for was holding my music collection and save files -- some of which were much larger than they had any right being. Most developers don't use it to speed up game loading, memory cards are 8MB for PS2 (and are about to be for GC) and can hold lots of saves, user-defined information is potentially slick but rarely used, downloadable content doesn't seem to be used much at all, and while custom soundtracks can be cool, I wouldn't call them a gameplay feature.

        A hard drive
        • ...downloadable content doesn't seem to be used much at all, and while custom soundtracks can be cool, I wouldn't call them a gameplay feature.

          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

  • Independent Xbox Games a No-Show (Score:5, Informative)

    by MiceHead ( 723398 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:09PM (#9008816) Homepage
    "If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change."

    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.)
    • ...are what has kept the console industry alive since the mid 80's.

      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)

    by clu76 ( 620823 )
    Microsoft has cornered the market of First Person Shooters. Good for them. Personally, I can only stand to play one or two FPS games a year.

  • What Sky? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:37PM (#9009152)
    I really have a hard time seeing this as anything but a good thing. Games that get ported to all 3 systems rarely look, play or feel as good as a game developed for one of the consoles exclusively. Even the much mocked PS2 can deliver some really impressive visuals and game play when the game is specificly developed for that platform.

    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)

    by superultra ( 670002 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @01:49PM (#9009315) Homepage
    I can't link to a specific article, but I remember very clearly that early on in Microsoft's strategy with the Xbox, perhaps even before they released it, J. Allard said that exclusivity on games for the Xbox meant hardware exclusivity. I recall thinking when I read this that this was extremely brilliant of Microsoft. You can pay someone to be exclusive, but when the money stops flowing there's no reason for them not to port it. On other hand, if it's that much more difficult logistically (and therefore financially) to port, why would publishers bother?

    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?
    • M$ has it all wrong.

      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

      • sell any ps2 games + ps2 exclusive games to Japan = sell more ps2 consoles

        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)

      by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <slebrunNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @02:27PM (#9009866) Journal
      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

      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.

      • Asides:

        DoA3 vs DoA2: Hardcore. [ign.com] Note especially Lei Fang's dress.

        Here's the story I referenced above, actually:

        First, a funny little bit of information regarding Team Ninja's development of the game. According to the magazine, Team Ninja received their Xbox development kits and wanted to test them out. So what would you do in this situation? Right - port your latest game to the new system as quickly as possible. And that's what Team Ninja did. Two members of the team got to work on a port of Dead or A

      • 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.

        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

    • 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

      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).
  • That this is because of the xbox's pc architecture? The xbox is one cool little gizmo because essentially it's a PC with excellent tv connectivity. That's about it, nothing else novel about it. Like all MS lines, it has a GREAT business strategy behind it, that's why they're rich don't forget.

    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)

    by madygoosey ( 745325 )
    These are games that probably wouldn't have been made for the playstation and gamecube anyway either cause they didn't really want to change as much code as they would have wanted since they spent so much time just making the pc version or they feel it wouldn't fit "the demographic" . What Id game did they ever make for the N64, was it quake 2 or something. No one wanted that cause they had a much better console game called goldeneye. These games were all designed for the PC, they're sort of just porting th
  • DJs were the developers of the 1950s. They did something like this, with record companies in the role of Microsoft. Back then it was called "payola", and a number of laws were passed to prevent it. That seems quite unlikely now.
    • 1) Substitute "Console Makers" for Microsoft, since Sony, Nintendo, AND MS are (and have been) doing this.
      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!
    • Ah, how right you are! We should be forcing software companies to release their wares not so as to maximize their profits, but so that their games can be played on EVERY console! It should be a law!

      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)

    by StocDred ( 691816 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @03:22PM (#9010784) Homepage Journal
    Are these true exclusives or time-based exclusives, like the original Splinter Cell? The word 'exclusive' doesn't mean much anymore if Microsoft is allowed to tout a game as exclusive when it comes out for PS2 three months later.

  • Good. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dark1 ( 179489 )
    I'm tired of multi-platform games catering to the lowest common denominator. I paid money for tha 64megs of money, developers should put it to use.

  • Any shooting themselves in the foot potential? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Isn't there a risk to MS's OS marketshare in moving more games to an XBox base? Also, will this not have a negative impact on the graphics card market?

    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
  • None of these games make me wet my pants.

    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.
  • Since when is Doom3 being released for XBox exclusively? Answer: It isn't. Ahh, so according to the article, it must therefore be being released *first* on XBox, right? Nope, wrong again.

    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.
  • This is major news?

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close